Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/accountability-reconsidered-voters-interests-and-infor mation-in-us-policymaking-cameron/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas
https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cookloucas/
Freud in Cambridge Laura Cameron
https://textbookfull.com/product/freud-in-cambridge-lauracameron/
Power and Risk in Policymaking: Understanding Public Health Debates Josephine Adekola
https://textbookfull.com/product/power-and-risk-in-policymakingunderstanding-public-health-debates-josephine-adekola/
NGOs and Accountability in China Jude Howell
https://textbookfull.com/product/ngos-and-accountability-inchina-jude-howell/
Political Identity in Discourse: The Voices of New Zealand Voters Jay M.
Woodhams
https://textbookfull.com/product/political-identity-in-discoursethe-voices-of-new-zealand-voters-jay-m-woodhams/
Accountability And Privacy In Network Security Yuxiang
Ma
https://textbookfull.com/product/accountability-and-privacy-innetwork-security-yuxiang-ma/
Patriarchal Theory Reconsidered: Torture and GenderBased Violence in Turkey 1st Edition Filiz Akgul (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/patriarchal-theory-reconsideredtorture-and-gender-based-violence-in-turkey-1st-edition-filizakgul-auth/
Inclusive Education Politics and Policymaking 1st Edition Anastasia Liasidou
https://textbookfull.com/product/inclusive-education-politicsand-policymaking-1st-edition-anastasia-liasidou/
Landmark Cases in Public International Law Cameron
Miles
https://textbookfull.com/product/landmark-cases-in-publicinternational-law-cameron-miles/
AccountabilityReconsidered
Thelasttwodecadeshavewitnessedasubstantialchangeinthemedia environment,growingpolarizationofthetwodominantparties,and increasinginequalityofwealthandincome.Theseprofoundchanges necessitateupdatingourunderstandingofpoliticalaccountability. AccountabilityReconsidered examineshowpoliticalaccountability functionsintheUSAtodaygiventhedramaticchangesinvoting behavior,media,congressionaldynamics,andrelationsbetween branches.Withparticularattentiontopolicymaking,thisvolume usesoriginalresearchtoanalyzemicro-foundationsofvoterbehavior, examiningitsimplicationsforincentivesandofferinginsightintothe accountabilityrelationshipsamongvoters,interestgroups,legislators, andgovernmentbureaucracy.Combiningcontributionsfromleading expertswhowriteaboutthepoliticalsystemsynopticallywiththose whofocusonspecificelements, AccountabilityReconsidered brings togetherdistinctperspectivestofocusontheeffectoftheinformational environmentongovernmentofficials,bridgingup-to-dateknowledge aboutaccountabilitymechanismswithouroverallunderstandingof politicalaccountability.
charlesm.cameronisProfessorofPoliticsandPublicAffairs atPrincetonUniversity.Theauthororco-authorofmanyarticlesin leadingjournalsofpoliticalscience,law,andlawandeconomics,heis alsotheauthoroftheprize-winning VetoBargaining:Presidentsandthe PoliticsofNegativePower (Cambridge,2000)andco-authorwithJohn Kastellecof MakingtheSupremeCourt:ThePoliticsofAppointments 1930–2020 (Oxford,2023).
brandicecanes-wroneisProfessorofPoliticalScienceand SeniorFellowattheHooverInstitution,StanfordUniversity.Duringthe courseofhercareer,Canes-Wronehaspublishedextensivelyintheareas ofpoliticalinstitutions,masspoliticalbehavior,andpoliticaleconomy inleadingjournalsofpoliticalscienceandothersocialsciences.Her book, WhoLeadsWhom?Presidents,Policy,andthePublic (University ofChicagoPress,2006)wasawardedtheRichardE.Neustadtprizeby theAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociationforthebestbookontheUS presidencythatyear.
sanfordc.gordonisProfessorinandChairoftheWilfFamily DepartmentofPoliticsatNewYorkUniversityandanAssociated Professor(bycourtesy)intheNewYorkUniversitySchoolofLaw. Hisworkhasappearedin TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview, theAmericanJournalofPoliticalScience,TheJournalofPolitics,the ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,amongmanyother leadingjournals.
gregorya.huberistheForstFamilyProfessorofPoliticalScience andChairofthePoliticalScienceDepartmentatYaleUniversity. Heistheauthorof TheCraftofBureaucraticNeutrality:Interests andInfluenceinGovernmentalRegulationofOccupationalSafety (Cambridge,2007)aswellasovereightyarticlesinleadingjournals ofpoliticalscienceandrelatedfields.
AccountabilityReconsidered Voters,Interests,andInformation inUSPolicymaking
Editedby
CHARLESM.CAMERON
PrincetonUniversity
BRANDICECANES-WRONE
StanfordUniversity
SANFORDC.GORDON
NewYorkUniversity
GREGORYA.HUBER
YaleUniversity
ShaftesburyRoad,Cambridgecb28ea,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,usa
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre, NewDelhi–110025,India
103PenangRoad,#05–06/07,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore238467
CambridgeUniversityPressispartofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment, adepartmentoftheUniversityofCambridge.
WesharetheUniversity’smissiontocontributetosocietythroughthepursuitof education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle: www.cambridge.org/9781009168328
doi: 10.1017/9781009168311
© CharlesM.Cameron,BrandiceCanes-Wrone,SanfordC.Gordon andGregoryA.Huber2023
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment. Firstpublished2023
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Names:Cameron,CharlesM.(CharlesMetz),1954–editor. | Canes-Wrone, Brandice,editor. | Gordon,SanfordClark,1972–editor.
Title:Accountabilityreconsidered:voters,interests,andinformationinUSpolicymaking/ CharlesM.Cameron,PrincetonUniversity,BrandiceCanes-Wrone,PrincetonUniversity, SanfordC.Gordon,NewYorkUniversity,GregoryA.Huber,YaleUniversity,eds. Othertitles:Voters,interests,andinformationinUnitedStatespolicymaking Description:FirstEdition. | NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2023. | Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
Identifiers:LCCN2022032961(print) | LCCN2022032962(ebook) | ISBN9781009168328 (Hardback) | ISBN9781009168304(Paperback) | ISBN9781009168311(epub)
Subjects:LCSH:Governmentaccountability–UnitedStates. | Representativegovernmentand representation–UnitedStates. | Politicalparticipation–UnitedStates. | Communication inpolitics–Technologicalinnovations. | Socialmedia–Politicalaspects–UnitedStates. | Elite(Socialsciences)–UnitedStates. | UnitedStates–Politicsandgovernment.
Classification:LCCJF1525.A26A252023(print) | LCCJF1525.A26(ebook) | DDC352.3/5–dc23/eng/20220930
LCrecordavailableat https://lccn.loc.gov/2022032961
LCebookrecordavailableat https://lccn.loc.gov/2022032962 isbn978-1-009-16832-8Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPress&Assessmenthasnoresponsibilityforthepersistence oraccuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhis publicationanddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain, accurateorappropriate.
ToR.DouglasArnold–Teacher,Colleague,Mentor,Friend
ListofFigures
1Introduction 1
CharlesM.Cameron,BrandiceCanes-Wrone, SanfordC.Gordon,andGregoryA.Huber
particandidateevaluationandselection
2TheImportanceofIssueRepresentationinaPolarizedCongress 15 JoshuaD.Clinton,MichaelW.Sances,andMaryCatherineSullivan
3CanCitizensAssessPoliciesBasedonPrograms’Costsand Benefits?TheRoleofYardsticksandContextualInformation inDemocraticAccountability 42 EricM.Patashnik,PatrickTucker,andAlanS.Gerber
4 Logic withPolarizedParties,ChangingMedia,andMotivated Reasoners 68 PatrickJ.EganandMarkusPrior
5Groups,Parties,andPolicyDemandsinHouseNominations 89 KathleenBawn,KnoxBrown,AngelaX.Ocampo, ShawnPatterson,Jr.,JohnL.Ray,andJohnZaller
partiithemediaandtheinformationalenvironment
6LocalNewspapersandIdeologicalAccountabilityinUS HouseElections 129 BrandiceCanes-WroneandMichaelR.Kistner
7Inequality,orInvisibilityandInaccuracy?HowLocal NewspapersCovertheOccupationalBackgroundsof CongressionalIncumbentsandChallengers 150 NicholasCarnes
8CongressionalAccountabilityintheContemporaryMedia Environment:Arguments,Data,andMethods 173 GregoryA.HuberandPatrickTucker
partiiipolicymaking,informationprovision,and accountability
9CoalitionLeadershipinthePolarizedCongress 197 FrancesE.Lee
10FireAlarmsandDemocraticAccountability 221 CharlesM.CameronandSanfordC.Gordon
11AchievingAccountability:AligningInstitutionsandBehavior 242 JohnW.Patty
partivoutsidethepubliceye?privateinterests andpolicymaking
12LegislatorAdvocacyonBehalfofConstituentsandCorporate Donors:ACaseStudyoftheFederalEnergyRegulatory Commission
EleanorNeffPowell,DevinJudge-Lord,andJustinGrimmer
13OrganizedInterests,Policymaking,andCongressional Accountability 295 LeeDrutman
14AdministrativePoliticswithClearStakesandVenues: StrategicCommentinguponFederalReserveDebitCard Regulations 311 DanielCarpenterandBrianLibgober
15Conclusion:AssessingContemporaryAccountability 334 CharlesM.Cameron,BrandiceCanes-Wrone, SanfordC.Gordon,andGregoryHuber
2.1Percentageofallrespondentswithanopinioncontrary totheirrepresentativeoneachissue(black)orwithout anopinion(gray),byissue page 25
2.2Issue(γn )andparty(κ)misalignmenteffects,byyear 26
2.3Effectofoverallmisalignmentonapprovalof representativeamongpartisanleaners(2008–2012) 27
2.4EffectofmisalignmentonACAvotesbyincome
2.5EffectofmisalignmentonACAvotesandvotestorepeal theACAbyPartisanship
3.1PredictedevaluationbyrespondentpartyIDandgrantcontext
3.2ConservativesareMoreResponsivetoContextual InformationaboutRelativeGrantSizethanLiberals
3.3Subjectsareresponsivetoinformationthatalegislator’s grantsaresmallerthanaveragefunded
3.4Predictedlegislatorandpolicyratingsacrossvignettes
4.1Thefourvoterdecisionrulesin TheLogicof CongressionalAction
4.2Split-ticketvotinginUSpresidentialelections,1952–2020
4.3 Logic’sdecisionrulesrevisedtoreflectpolarizedparties, changingmedia,andmotivatedreasoners
7.1Stories,issues,evaluations,andoccupationalinformation
7.2Histogramsofmemberoccupationcounts,bysource
7.3Probabilitythatapastjobappearedonamemberwebsite orinthenews,bytypeofjob
7.4Coveragedidn’tseemtodependonclass
8.1Thedeclineinnewspapercirculation
8.2Thedeclineinnewspaperemployment
10.1CrimeandcorrectionalsupervisionintheUnitedStates, 1960–2020
12.1Thedistributionacrosstypesofcongressionalrequests FERCvs.allagencies
12.2Whattypesoflettersaresupportiveofbusinesses?
12.4Whowritesonbehalfofconstituentsvs.business?By legislatorparty,majoritystatus,andpresidentpartisanship
12.5Statepopulationandsenateletter-writing
12.7AverageenergysectorPACcontributionspermemberpercycle
12.8Cross-partydifferencesincampaigncontributionsfrom energysectorPACs(left)andnon-energysectorPACs(right)
12.10Bivariatemodels:Campaigncontributionsand letter-writingtoFERC
12.11Bivariatemodels:Partymembershipandletter-writingtoFERC
12.12Multivariatemodels:Campaigncontributions,party,and letter-writingtoFERC
12.13PredictednumberofletterstoFERC
12.14PredictedprobabilityofwritingtoFERC
12.A.1Exampleofconstituencyserviceletter.Thisisa constituencyserviceletterwrittenbySenatorSusan Collins(R-ME)toFERConApril28,2008
12.A.2Exampleofenergyprojectadvocacy.Thisisaletter writtenbyRep.AlexMooney(R-WV2)toFERCon October12,2017
12.A.3Exampleofpersonalbusinessinterest.Thisisaletter writtenbyformerSenatorBobGraham(R-FL)toFERC onSeptember30,2014,nearlyadecadeafterretiring fromtheUSSenate
14.1DistributionofDodd-Frankrulemakingdocketsranked bynumberofcommentsreceived
14.2Proportionofcommentsfrompubliclytradedcompanies accordingtoglobalindustrialclassificationsystem industrygroup 321
14.3PercentagereturnsforkeystocksonafternoonofNPRM, December16,2010
14.4Percentagereturnsonafternoonoffinalization,June29,2011
14.5 ˆ Qk iω(j) fortwofirmsbenefittinginexpectationandtwo firmsinexpectationnotaffected
14.6Illustrationofcommontrendsamongcommentersand abstainerspriortoruleannouncement:Debitcardfinal ruleannouncement,July2012 328
14.7ReturnstofinalruleforAmericanExpressandBestBuy2012
2.1VotesonAffordableCareActandrepealefforts
2.A.1Fullresults:CCES2008–CCES2012
2.A.3Fullresults:aggregatemisalignmentbyparty
3.1Measuringconstituentresponsivenesstothedollar claimed:ExtensionofGrimmer,Westwood,andMessing (2015)withclimatechangeeducationscenario
3.2Relative,notabsolute,sizeinfluencessubjects’ evaluations:climatechangeeducationvignette
3.3Treatmentconditionsforsurveyexperimentextensionon
3.4Meansandstandarderrorsacrossconditions:deliveringmoney
3.5Meansandstandarderrorsacrossconditions:feelingthermometer
3.6Predictingpolicyapprovalbydistributionofbenefitsandcosts
8.1MCsandmediaaccountability:existingdataandopportunities
9.1RevenueenhancementsinHouse,Senate,andfinal versionsoftheTaxCutsandJobsActof2017
10.1Archetypalinformationalenvironmentsinthepolitical theoryofagency
10.2Summaryofbaselinecasesabsentasentinel
10.3Theconditionaleffectsofthird-partysentinelson democraticaccountability
12.C.1Bivariatemodels:Campaigncontributionsand letter-writingtoFERC.BivariatePoissonRegression modelspredictingletter-writingactivitytoFERCusing campaigncontributionsfromtheenergyindustry
12.C.2Bivariatemodels:Partyandletter-writingtoFERC. BivariatePoissonRegressionmodelspredicting letter-writingactivitytoFERCusingLegislator’sParty
12.C.3Bivariatemodels:Loggedcampaigncontributionsand letter-writingtoFERC.BivariatePoissonRegression modelspredictingletter-writingactivitytoFERCusing loggedenergyindustrycampaigncontributions
12.C.4CareerBivariatemodels:Campaigncontributionsand letter-writingtoFERCoveramember’sentirecareer. BivariatePoissonRegressionmodelspredicting letter-writingactivitytoFERCusingenergyindustry campaigncontributions
12.C.5Multivariatemodels:Predictingdifferenttypesof letter-writingactivity.MultivariatePoissonRegression modelspredictingletter-writingactivitytoFERC
Contributors
KathleenBawn
ProfessorofPoliticalScience,UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles(UCLA)
KnoxBrown
AssistantProfessorofPoliticalScience,TulsaCommunityCollege
CharlesM.Cameron
ProfessorofPoliticsandPublicAffairs,PrincetonUniversity
BrandiceCanes-Wrone
ProfessorofPoliticalScienceandSeniorFellowatTheHooverInstitution, StanfordUniversity
NicholasCarnes
CreedC.BlackAssociateProfessorofPublicPolicyandPoliticalScience, DukeUniversity
DanielP.Carpenter
AllieS.FreedProfessorofGovernment,FacultyofArtsandSciences,Harvard University
JoshuaD.Clinton
AbbyandJohnWinkelreidChair,DepartmentofPoliticalScience,Vanderbilt University
LeeDrutman
SeniorFellow,PoliticalReformProgram,NewAmerica
PatrickJ.Egan
AssociateProfessorofPoliticsandPublicPolicy,NewYorkUniversity
AlanGerber
DeanofSocialScience,CharlesC.andDoratheaS.DilleyProfessorof PoliticalScience,andProfessorintheInstitutionforSocialandPolicyStudies, ofEconomics,andofPublicHealth,YaleUniversity
SanfordC.Gordon ProfessorofPolitics,andAssociatedProfessor(bycourtesy)ofLaw,New YorkUniversity
JustinGrimmer
ProfessorofPoliticalScienceandSeniorFellowattheHooverInstitution, StanfordUniversity
GregoryA.Huber
ForstFamilyProfessorofPoliticalScienceandresidentfellowofthe InstitutionforSocialandPolicyStudies(ISPS),YaleUniversity
DevinJudge-Lord PostdoctoralFellow,HarvardUniversity
MichaelR.Kistner
AssistantProfessorofPoliticalScience,UniversityofHouston
FrancesE.Lee
ProfessorofPoliticsandPublicAffairs,PrincetonUniversity
BrianLibgober
AssistantProfessorofPoliticalScience,UniversityofCaliforniaatSanDiego
AngelaX.Ocampo
AssistantProfessorofMexicanAmericanandLatina/oStudies,Universityof TexasatAustin
EricM.Patashnik
Julis-RabinowitzProfessorofPublicPolicyandProfessorofPoliticalScience, BrownUniversity
ShawnPatterson
AssistantProfessorofPoliticalScience,SouthernOregonUniversity
JohnW.Patty ProfessorofPoliticalScienceandQuantitativeTheory&Methods,Emory University
EleanorNeffPowell BoothFowlerAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScience,Universityof Wisconsin-Madison
MarkusPrior ProfessorofPoliticsandPublicAffairs,PrincetonUniversity
JohnL.Ray PhDCandidate,UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles(UCLA)
MichaelW.Sances AssistantProfessorofPoliticalScience,TempleUniversity
MaryCatherineSullivan PhDCandidate,VanderbiltUniversity
PatrickTucker SeniorStatistician,EdisonResearch
JohnZaller ProfessorofPoliticalScienceEmeritus,UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles (UCLA)
Acknowledgments
ThisvolumeisconcernedwithunderstandingthedynamicsofpoliticalaccountabilityinthecontemporaryUnitedStates.Itsoriginslieintheauthors’attempts tograpplewiththeworkofaparticularscholar,R.DouglasArnold.Doug’s workonpoliticalaccountability,centrallyfocusingonthelynchpinoftheUS Congress,isbroadlyinfluentialtomanyscholarsinterestedinthistopicand theperformanceoftheUSpoliticalsystemmoregenerally.Additionally,Doug isandhasbeenafriend,mentor,colleague,andinspirationtomanyscholarsof Americanpolitics.
InhonorofDoug’sforty-two-yearcareeratPrincetonandontheoccasion ofhisretirement,weassembledagroupofscholarsinMay2019toparticipate inaconferenceonthebroadthemeofpoliticalaccountability.Thechapters inthisvolumeareasubsetofthosepresentedattheconference,revisedand improveduponinlightofdiscussionsthattookplaceatthatevent.
Wewouldliketothanktheconferenceparticipantsanddiscussants, includingLarryBartels,JasonCasellas,JustinCrowe,AndrewGuess,Patricia Kirkland,JonathanLadd,AsyaMagazinnik,DavidMayhew,AdamMeirowitz, KevinMunger,RachelPotter,AndrewRoberts,KodiakSauer,Sebastian Thieme,DanielleThomsen,PhilipWallach,andKeithWhittington.Michele EpsteinandHeleneWoodlenttheirincalculableadministrativeacumentothe organizationoftheconferenceitselfandalsohelpedinnumerouswaysaswe preparedthisvolumeforpublication.IvanAleksandrov,MichaelPomirchy, andJamilaRuddockprovidedsubstantialadditionalassistanceinwhipping thevolumeintoshape.Wearealsogratefultothehelpfulsuggestionsofthe reviewersandteamatCambridgeUniversityPress.
AsforDoug,weexpecthe’llappreciateourdirectnessinadmittingthatwhile wecontinuetobeinspiredbyhiswork,wealsoenjoyedfindingtheareaswhere hegotthingswrong.
Introduction
CharlesM.Cameron,BrandiceCanes-Wrone, SanfordC.Gordon,andGregoryA.Huber
HowdoespoliticalaccountabilityfunctioninthecontemporaryUnitedStates andwhataretheconsequencesforrepresentation?Thecontributionsinthis volumeprovidedistinctyetinterrelatedperspectivesonthisquestion,sharinga commonfocusonhowtheinformationalenvironmentconfrontedbypolitical actorsaffectstheaccountabilityofelectedrepresentativesandothergovernmentofficialstopublicpreferences.
Whatisaccountability?Ausefulstartingpointisthefollowingdefinition: accountabilityreferstoactionsbyanactororgroupofactorsonbehalfof anotherunderasystemofpunishmentsandrewardsatleastinpartunder thecontrolofthelatter.Asiscommon,welabelthosewiththeauthorityto offersanctionsprincipals,andthosewhoareoverseenasagents.Fromthe perspectiveofscholarsofUSpolitics,electoralaccountabilityisperhapsthe mostimportantsubspeciesoftheseprincipal-agentrelationships.Thistypeof accountabilitycentersontherelationshipbetweenvotersandelectedofficials, wherethesystemofpunishmentsandrewardsisimplementedprimarilyviathe electoralmechanism.
Atthesametime,theelectoralconnectionisclearlynottheonlypolitically relevantaccountabilityrelationship.Othersincludetherelationshipbetween privateinterestsandcandidateswhoseektheirfinancialsupporttorunfor office;betweenelectedmembersofpoliticalpartiesandtheirparty’slegislative leadership;andbetweenunelectedbureaucratswhoimplementpoliciesand electedofficials,thelatterofwhomareanintermediatelinkconnectingtheformertovotersandprivateinterests.Theseexampleshighlightthataccountability relationshipsarelayeredandoverlappingintheAmericanpoliticalsystem. Consequently,understandingpolicymakingrequiresappreciatingthecomplex relationshipslinkingvotersandprivateintereststoelectedandunelected policymakersandhowtheincentivesandbehavioroftheformerinfluencethe incentivesandbehaviorofthelatter.
Acomprehensiveunderstandingoftheserelationshipsalsobringstothefore thecriticalroleofinformation,withoutwhichaccountabilityisimpossible.For example,votersmaywanttheirrepresentativestochoosegoodpublicpolicy butmaylacktheinformationorexpertisenecessarytodeterminewhat“good” evenmeans.Instead,iftheyobserveanything,theymaybeforcedtorelyon imperfectproxiesforincumbentperformance(e.g.,rollcallvoting),orona thirdpartysuchasachallengertotellthemwhattheirincumbenthasbeen upto.Whataretheconsequencesofthesecontextsforincumbentincentives? Howmighttheseincentiveschangeinaworldwherekeypolicymakingis oftennegotiatedbehindcloseddoorsinadvanceofahighlypolarizedfloor vote?Andhowdoesinfluenceofoutsidepoliticalactorsoncandidateselection affecttheaccountabilityrelationshipbetweenrepresentativesandtheirnominal constituents?
Tobesure,theunderlyingquestionofhowaccountabilityfunctionsisnot newinAmericanpolitics.Canonicalresearchhighlightshowvoterpreferences (e.g.,Downs, 1957)andinterestgroupgoals(e.g.,Wilson, 1980)shapepolicy outcomes.Moreover,electoralincentivesareunderstoodasessentialforunderstandingtheinternalorganizationofCongress(Mayhew, 1974),thebehavior ofitsmembers(Fenno, 1978),andhowcoalitionleaderssometimesmanageto overcomeelectoralparochialismtoservethenationalinterest(Arnold, 1990). Similarly,someresearchstudiesthebureaucraciesasagentsofcongressional interests(McCubbins,Noll,andWeingast, 1987)orpresidentialinterests (Moe, 1985),whileotherscholarshipviewsthemasessentiallyungoverned (Lowi, 1979)oracutelyconcernedwithcultivatingsupportfromthepublic andspecialintereststopursuepreferredpoliciesintheabsenceofinterference (Carpenter, 2001).Butmuchofthiswork,evenifnotexplicitlyhistorical, comesfromadifferenteraofpolicymaking,andassuch,doesnotreflecta contemporarypoliticalcontextinwhichthepreferencesofkeyactorshave changedandtheinformationalenvironmenthasbeendramaticallyaltered. Asanon-exhaustivelist,considerfourfactsthathaveenormousimplications forthecontemporaryinformationalenvironmentandincentivesofpolitical actors:
1.Themediaecosystemhasfractured,andlocalnewspapershavedeclined precipitously.Themonolithicnationaltelevisionnewsthatgenerateda sharedunderstandingofcontemporarypoliticshasbeenreplacedbycable television,offeringnumerousnon-newsoutletsandmoreideological content.Morethanever,individualscanavoidpoliticsaltogetheror choosetheirownideologicalflavorofcoverage.Atthelocallevel,the declineoflocalnewspapersmeansthatakeysourceofinformationabout localpolitics,includingcoverageofindividualmembersofCongress,has diminishedprecipitouslyandinsomedistrictsdisappearedentirely.Each ofthesefactorshasbeenexacerbatedbytheinternetandsocialmedia.
2.Politicalpartieshavegrownmoreideologicallyhomogeneousatboththe massandelitelevels.Morepolarizedpartiespursuemoredistinctpolicy agendas.InsideCongress,membershavecededgreatercontrolofthe legislativeagendaandthecraftingoflegislationtopartyleadership,often bypassingthetraditionalcommitteesystem.Andvotersaremorelikelyto sharethepolicygoalsofthepartytheyidentifywith,evenwhilealarge portionoftheelectoratedoesnotofficiallyalignwitheitherparty.
3.Theconcentrationofwealthandeconomicpowerhasincreased,andwith it,theavenuesthroughwhicheconomicresourcesmaybedeployedfor politicalends.Accompanyingthesechangeshavebeenconcurrentonesin thelegallandscapesurroundingpoliticalspendingbycorporationsand individuals.Donationsfromandexpendituresbyindividualsandorganizationsoutsideofalegislator’sdistricthavedramaticallyalteredthesetof intereststowhichrank-and-filelegislatorsmustattend.Similarly,efforts tolobbybothelectedofficialsandunelectedbureaucratshavegrownin bothvolumeandsophistication.
4.Electoralfortunesarelessstable.Bothmajorpartiesrobustlycontest nationalelections,withfrequentchangesinpartycontroloftheHouse, Senate,andPresidency.Partiesworktorecruitcrediblecandidatesfor thoseelectionsthatdecidecontrolofCongress,andtheincumbency advantagehasshrunkwhileprimarycontestshavebecomemoreclosely contested.
Itisthisevolvingpoliticalcontextthatframesourinquiryintopolitical accountabilityintheUnitedStates.Thechaptersthatfollow,inadditionto offeringspecificcontributions,collectivelycontributetotworelatedthemes. First,thevolumejoinsanalysisofvoters’behaviorwithhowpolicymakers respondtoit.Oftenintheliterature,scholarshipexaminesinternallegislative dynamicswithoutconsideringvoters’incentivesandinformation,orelectoral behaviorwithouttheimplicationsforpolicymaking.Indeed,asthesubfields ofpoliticalsciencehavebecomemorespecialized,differentstrandsofAmerican politicsscholarshiprelevantforunderstandingpoliticalaccountabilityand representationhavedevelopedindisparateways.
Forexample,formalmodelsofpoliticalaccountabilityhaveinvestigated policymakers’incentivesundervariousinstitutionalarrangementsandpolitical contexts.1 ArichliteratureonCongresshasdelvedintointernallegislative dynamicsbyexaminingtherolesofparties,committees,andinstitutionalrules forlawproduction,rollcallvoting,andbureaucraticoversight.2 Meanwhile, empiricalexaminationsofpolicyresponsivenesshaveuncoveredevidence regardingtheextenttowhichmasspreferencestranslateintopolicy,andthe
1 SeereviewsbyAshworth (2012) andGailmardandPatty (2012a) on,respectively,electoral accountabilityandcongressional-bureaucraticrelations.
2 See,e.g.,Binder (2015) forarecentreviewarticle.
“credibilityrevolution”hasuntiedpreviouslyintractabledebatesaboutthe antecedentsofvoterbehavior.3 Yetasthefieldhasbecomemorespecialized, syntheticworkthattheoreticallyandempiricallyinvestigatespolicymakingas anexusofaccountabilityrelationshipshasbecomelesscommonorhasbecome increasinglydisconnectedfromthetheoreticalandempiricalinsightsfrommore specializedresearchlineages.Theneedforsuchworkisparticularlyimportant giventhemassivedevelopmentsinpoliticsandmediathathaveoccurredin recentdecades.
Thesecondthemeisaconsiderationofpoliticaldevelopmentsthatmay meritareevaluationofcanonicalaccountsofpoliticalaccountability.Inother words,thistreatmentofaccountabilityandpolicymakinghelpsdelineatewhat hasfundamentallychangedversuswhathasnot.Indeed,severalchaptersare explicitlyconcernedwithofferingupdatestoclassicresearchstudiesthat, whilestillfrequentlyassignedinbothundergraduateandgraduatecourses, aredatedinboththeevidencetheydrawonandtheperspectivestheytake. Thus,thevolumeservesasabridgefromthesecanonicalstudiestoamore contemporaryperspective.Evenchaptersthatarenotexplicitupdatesofthose studiesofferimportantinsightsintothewaysinwhichpoliticaldevelopments reshapeconventionalwisdom.
Nointellectualinquirycanbeabouteverything,andsoitisimportantto delimitthescopeoftheeffortsofthecontributorstothisvolumebyexplaining whatitis not about.Inparticular,thechaptershavelittletosayaboutthe president,thecourts,andstateandlocalgovernmentsormanyproposed institutionalreforms.Issuesofaccountabilityandrepresentationastheyapply toeachofthesetopicsarecritical,butbeyondthepurviewofthecurrent inquiry.
Thevolumeisorganizedintofourparts. PartI focusesoncandidatesrunningforCongress,andconsidershowthesecandidatesareselectedinprimary andgeneralelectionsinlightoftheinformationavailabletootherpolitical actors. PartII honesinonthemediaasacriticalsourceofsuchinformation, particularlyhowitservesasakeyintermediarybetweenvotersandboth incumbentsandnewcandidatesforoffice. PartIII againfocusescentrallyon information,butshiftstotheperspectiveofgovernmentofficials,toanalyze howinformationalasymmetriesinthecontemporarypoliticallandscapeaffect policymaking.Morespecifically, PartIII considersthepolicyimplicationsof suchasymmetriesbetweenvotersandpublicofficials(especiallyCongress)as wellasbetweenCongressandthebureaucracy.Finally, PartIV considershow interestsaffectpolicymakinginwaysthataregenerallyoutsidethepurviewof votersandthuslimitvoters’abilitytoholdofficialsaccountable.
3 See,e.g.,Canes-Wrone (2015) forarecentreviewarticleonpolicyresponsivenessandJacobson andCarson (2019) forevidenceoncongressionalelections.
part i:candidateevaluationandselection
Thechaptersinthissectionopenuptheblackboxofcongressionalelections. Towhatdegreeareincumbentsheldaccountablefortheirpolicydecisions? Howdovotersinterpretdifferentpiecesofinformationwhenforminginferencesaboutincumbentperformance?Whataretheimplicationsofdifferent understandingsofvoterpsychologyandtheinformationalenvironmentforthe discipliningforceofelections?Andwhatofprimaries,whereintheabsence ofpartylabels,votersandinterestgroupsfacemuchtougherchallengesin choosingamongcandidates?Together,thechapterspointtoaworldthatmoves beyondtheclassicperspectivessuchasDowns(1957),Mayhew(1974),and Arnold(1990),butalsoretainscriticalcomponents.Inparticular,legislators continuetofacesubstantialpressuresthatfacilitatesomeformofelectoral accountability,butthenatureofthosepressuresdiffersfromthatdetailedin theearlierperspectives.
Thesectionopenswith Chapter2, byJoshClinton,MichaelSances,and MaryCatherineSullivan.ThischapterconsiderswhethervotersholdincumbentHouserepresentativesaccountableforpolicyactionsinoffice,focusing onthecontextinwhicharepresentativetakesapositionthatisunalignedwith constituents’views.Twoanalysesarepresented.First,theauthorsexaminethe universeofissuesinthe2008–2017CongressionalCooperativeElectionStudy (CCES)surveysinwhichrespondents’positionscanbematchedtoaHouse rollcallvote.Second,theyconductanin-depthanalysisofrecentlegislative activityconcerningtheAffordableCareAct(ACA),includingwithrespect tohowdemographicgroupsvaryinholdingmembersaccountablefortheir positions.Acrossbothtests,theresultssuggestthateventhoughpartisanlabels exertanindependenteffectonvoterevaluations,issuepositionsmatter.These findingsimplythatdespitetheincreasingroleofpartisanshipinUSelections, issue-basedconsiderationsasobservedinrollcallvotesremainimportantwith respecttovoters’willingnesstoholdincumbentsaccountable.
In Chapter3, EricPatashnik,PatrickTucker,andAlanGerbercontinue theexaminationofwhetherandhowvotersholdlegislatorsaccountable. Buildingonbehavioralresearchconcerningthewaysinwhichindividuals evaluatepolicycostsandbenefits,theauthorsemployaseriesofsurvey experimentstoexaminevoterchoice.Onesetinvestigateswhetherindividuals aremoreresponsivetoinformationabouttheabsolutesizeofagranta legislatorsecuresforthedistrict,orinsteadinformationaboutobtaininga grantofaboveorbelowaveragesize.Asecondsetmanipulatesinformation concerningroadbenefits,socialprograms,andanabstractpolicy.Theresults suggestthatcitizens’sensitivitytotheincidenceofcostsandbenefitsdepends substantiallyonwhethertheypossessapointofreferencethatenablesthem tobenchmarkthemagnitudeofpolicyeffects.Additionally,respondentsare responsivetoinformationaboutchangesinpolicycostsandbenefitswhen thevignettesconcernaspecificpolicybutnotanabstractone.Together,these
CharlesM.Cameron,BrandiceCanes-Wrone,SanfordC.Gordonetal.
findingshighlighthowincumbentaccountabilitydependsonthenatureofthe informationvotersreceive.
Chapter4 byPatrickEganandMarkusPriorstepsback,consideringhow anoptimizinglegislatorconcernedbothwiththeirownpolicypreferences andthethreatofelectoralsanctionwouldbehaveinlightofcontemporary evidenceregardingvoters’tighterpolicyagreementwiththeirparties,their limitedinformationaboutincumbentsandpolicyoutcomes,andheightened partisan-motivatedreasoning.Eachofthesephenomenarequiressignificant modificationtoourunderstandingoflegislatorincentives.Evenso,theauthors showthatthechangesdonotimplyWestminster-styleaccountabilityoflegislatorsbasedonpartylabels;therealconsequencesofpoliciescontinuetomatter tovoters.Atthesametime,partylabelsandprimariesmattermuchmorethan formerly,potentiallyweakeningtheincentivesforcross-partycooperationto enactpoliciesthatservethegeneralinterest.
Thefinalchapterofthissection, Chapter5, byKathleenBawn,KnoxBrown, AngelaX.Ocampo,ShawnPatterson,Jr.,JohnL.Ray,andJohnZaller,examinestherolesofvotersandorganizedinterestsincongressionalprimaries.The authorspresentfindingsfromextensivefieldwork,whichinvolvedinterviews withsupportersandcandidatesinfifty-threepotentiallywinnableopenseat Houseracesinthe2013–2014electioncycle.Theyarguethatgroups,including sometimeslocalpartyorganizations,arethekeyprincipalsthatmonitor candidates.Bothgroupsandvotersareinterestedinminimizinguncertainty aboutacandidate’scommitmenttoparticularpolicygoals,competence,and competitiveness.Groupsarecentraltoreducingthisuncertainty,withvoters relyingongroups’signalstodistinguishamongpotentialnominees.Notably, thisperspectivediffersfromtheclassicDownsianmodelinwhichaselectorate simplysupportsthecandidateclosesttotheirideologicalposition.InBawn etal.’sperspective,differencesincandidates’commitmentsorabilitiestosecure agroup’spolicygoalsmaycausethecandidateclosesttotheselectorate’s ideologicalpositionstolosetheprimary.Thesefindingshighlightthevitalrole ofprimariesandsuggestanexplanationastowhygeneralelectioncandidates donotadoptmoreideologicallymoderatepositions.
part ii:themediaandtheinformationalenvironment
Thesecondsetofchaptersconsidershowmediadevelopmentsshapevoter knowledgeaboutcandidateactionsandpreferences.Becauseinformationcollectioniscostly,rationalindividualslargelyrelyonotherstoprovidethispublic goodorturntolesscostlyheuristicsubstitutes,suchaspartylabels,toinform theirchoices.The“media”–broadlyconstruedtoincludeforumsasvariedas localnewspaperandtelevisionsstations;nationalnewspapers,broadcast,and cabletelevisionstations;andtheinternetandsocialmedia–arearguablythe keysourceoffreeorlow-costinformationfromwhichvoterscanmovebeyond partylabelsinmakingelectoralchoices.Historically,localnewspapershave
servedasthecriticalsourceofinformationaboutcongressionalcandidates,but localnewspapersaredisappearingorbeinghollowedoutatanalarmingrate whilecableTV,theinternet,andsocialmediaprovidenewoutletsthatbypass traditionalmediagatekeepingandwherecontentisoftendevoidoftraditional journalisticnormsaboutcoverage.Thesechangesraisenewquestionsabout howpoliticalaccountabilityfunctionsinthecurrentmediaenvironmentas wellashowaccountability-relatedincentiveshaveevolvedwithchangesin themedia.Thethreechaptersinthissectioneachapproachthesequestions indifferentways.
In Chapter6, BrandiceCanes-WroneandMichaelKistnerexaminehow localnewspapercoverageaffectstheextenttowhichideologicallyextreme candidatesarepunishedatthepolls,andwhetherthisrelationshiphaschanged overtimewiththedeclineinlocalnewspapers.Specifically,theauthorsexploit variationacrossdistrictsandtimeinthecongruencebetweenHousemembers’ districtsandlocalnewspapermarketstoestimatetheeffectofcoverageon therelationshipbetweencandidateideologyandelectionoutcomes.While forincumbentstheimpactismodest,forchallengers,reducedcoverageis associatedwithasubstantialreductioninthepenalty(reward)associatedwith ideologicalextremity(moderation).Additionally,theauthorsshowthatthis effectincreasedduringtheperiodinwhichtheinternet,socialmedia,andcable TVincreasedandthecoverageoflocalnewspapersdeclined.
NicholasCarnescontinuesthefocusonlocalnewspapersin Chapter7 byinvestigatinghowtheycovermembersofCongress.Alackofinformationaboutcandidatesoftenmakesitdifficultforvoterstolearnimportant characteristicsthatcouldaltervotingchoices.Giventhisasymmetry,thepreelectionemploymenthistoryofcandidatesmayfillinsomeofthegaps.Class backgroundmaybeanimportantfactorforvoterstoconsider,forexample,if theydesiretheexpertiseofcandidateswithaparticularbackgroundand/or descriptiverepresentation.Dolocalnewspapersprovidethatinformation? Carnesexaminesthecoverageof25Houseraceswithincumbentmembers runningforreelectionin2006,selectedtooversamplethoseincumbentswith workingclassbackgroundspriortotakingoffice.Contentanalysisrevealsthat theoccupationalhistoryofincumbentsrarelyreceivesmuchcoverage.The backgroundsofchallengersaremorenewsworthy,butoverallcoverageofthis aspectremainsmodest.Thefindingssuggestthatcoveragenearelection-time focusesonincumbentparty,issuepositions,andperformanceinofficebutnot signalsofclassbackground.Thislackofbiographicalinformationmayprevent votersfromobtainingdescriptiverepresentationthattheydesire.
Finally,in Chapter8, GregoryHuberandPatrickTuckerreconsiderthe centralroleoflocalnewspapersincongressionalaccountabilitygiventhe declineinlocalprintmedia,expansionofnationalnewspapersandcable television,andgrowthoftheinternet.Astheauthorsargue,thesechanges callintoquestionwhetherclassicworksaccuratelycharacterizethecurrent environmentandthedynamicsofelectoralaccountability.Thechapterbegins
bydiscussingthetheoreticalrelationshipbetweendevelopmentsinthequantity aswellasnatureofcoverageandtheensuingincentivesforcandidatesand officeholders.Itthenusesthistheoreticalframeworktoreviewpriorwork onthenature,frequency,andcorrelatesofmediacoverageofcongressional membersandelectionsacrossdifferentmediums.Finally,theauthorspropose anagendaforaunifiedcross-mediadatacollectionprojectoncitizens’political informationenvironmentsvis-á-visCongress.
part iii:policymaking,informationprovision, andaccountability
PartIII ofthevolumeshiftsfromafocusonvotersandthemediatohowthese externalpressuresandotherdevelopmentsaffectpolicymaking.Acommon threadacrossthechaptersistheroleofinformationinshapingpolicymakers’ incentives.Howdocoalitionleadersseektobuildlegislativecoalitionsthat cansurviveinaworldofstronger,morepolarizedparties,andhowdoesvoter informationaboutpoliciesandoutcomesaffecttheseincentives?Giventhat votershavestrongmotivationstodelegatetoothersthetaskofbringingto lightlegislativemalfeasance,whathappenswhenthose“firealarms”arebiased andvotersknowit?Finally,giventhecomplexityofbureaucraticpolicymaking andaninformationalasymmetrythatfavorsbureaucratsoverlegislators, howdolegislatorsengenderbureaucraticaccountabilitywhenoverseeing agencies?
FrancesLeebeginsthissectionin Chapter9 byasking:Whatstrategies docoalitionsuseinthecontemporary,polarizedCongresstobuildfeasible legislativecoalitions,anddothesestrategiesdifferfromthoseinperiodswith lessdistinctandlesshomogenousparties?Carefullyexaminingthetwomajor legislativeeffortsofthe115thCongress(2017–2018),taxreformandtherepeal andreplacementoftheAffordableCareAct(ACA),Leefindsthatcoalition leadersusedmanyofthesamepolicyandproceduraltechniquesofprevious periods.Inparticular,leadersdeployedproceduraltacticstobreaktheclear linkagebetweencongressionalactionandpainfulpolicyeffects,reducingthe traceabilityoftheiractionstovoters.Similarly,coalitionleaderssubstantially modifiedtheirproposalstoreducethecostsimposedontheconstituentsof legislatorswhosevotestheyneeded,allowingthemtogathersupporteven fromreelection-mindedmembers.Whentheseeffortsfailedoutright,asinthe caseoftheACA,thereasonswerethatthepolicyreformsaffordedinsufficient benefitsbeyondapartyfulfillingacampaignpromisewhileimposingtraceable costsonconstituents.Ultimately,sheconcludesthatalthoughpolarization mayhaveloweredprospectsformajorlegislativesuccess,coalitionbuilders’ optimaltacticsandproceduraltechniquesdemonstratemorecontinuity thanchange.
In Chapter10, CharlesCameronandSanfordGordonconsidertheimplicationsforpoliticalaccountabilityofbiasesinthesourcesofinformationvoters
usetoevaluateincumbentperformance.Votersoftendependonknowledgeable thirdparties,suchaschallengersandinterestgroups,toprovidesuchinformation,whichoftencomesintheformof“firealarms”alertingvoterstodamaging factsabouttheperformanceoftheirelectedofficials.Groupsandchallengers arehardlydisinterestedparties,however–theyhavepoliticalmotivationsof theirown.CameronandGordonshowthatthedesireofincumbentstoavoid triggeringafirealarmfromsuchabiasedobservermayleadthemtoeschew actionsthatservetheinterestsoftheirconstituentsortotakeactionsagainst thoseinterests.Thus,third-partyfirealarmoversightofincumbentscancreate perversepolicymakingincentivesthatundermineaccountability.Incumbent credit-claimingcanmitigate,butnoteliminate,thesedistortions.Inshort,firealarmaccountabilityisnosubstituteforknowledgeablevoters.
Finally,in Chapter11, JohnPattyinvestigateshowprincipalsincomplex politicalrelationships(e.g.,legislatorsoverseeingbureaucraticagencies,administratorsoverseeingcivilservants)managetheirownthornyinformational problems.Inparticular,heaskshowtheselectiveincentivesanddiagnostic criteriaemployedbypoliticalprincipalsaccountfortheprofoundcomplexity ofpoliticalorganizationsandpolicydecisions.Drawingondevelopments inbehavioraleconomics,Pattyintroducestheconceptof bracketing –how principalsandagentsgroupchoiceswhencontemplatingactions.Asthechapter shows,bracketingcanaffectthewaysinwhich,forexample,congressional membersevaluatetheconsequencesofbureaucraticchoices,theflowofevaluativeinformationavailabletomembers,andtheincentivesforagencyofficials tomisallocateefforts.Pattyalsodiscusseshowbracketingmayconsequently influencefeaturesofinstitutionaldesignincludingexantecontrols,suchas noticeandcommentprocedures,andexpostmonitoring,suchascongressional oversighthearings.
part iv:outsidethepubliceye?privateinterests andpolicymaking
Movingawayfromafocusonvotersasthechiefpoliticalprincipalinaccountabilityrelationships,thecontributionsinthissectionfocusongovernment officials’accountabilitytoadifferentsetofpoliticalactors:privateinterests. Whenpolicymakingtakesplacebehindcloseddoors,eitherinthebureaucracy or,increasingly,withinpartycaucuses,doprivateinterestssupplantvotersas theprimaryoutsideinfluenceonpolicydecisions?Thisquestioniscentraltothe chaptersthatfollow,eachofwhichtakesonadifferentaspectoftheissue.For instance,whenmembersofCongresscommunicatetheinterestsoftheirconstituentstobureaucraticagencies,howmuchdothosecommunicationsreflect biasesintheresourcesavailabletodifferentgroups?Areinterestgroupsmoreor lesspowerfulinthecontemporaryhighlypolarizedCongresswherecommittees andotherpolicymakingpartsoftheinstitutionhavebecomeweakervis-à-vis partyorganizations?Andhowdifferentfromlegislativepolicymakingishighly
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
6, 19, 172
mizlāgōth, 184
mizrāḳōth, 184
Moab, 116 f.
Moabites, invasion by, 249 f.
Molech (Malcam, Milcom), 125, 293
Mount Gerizim, Samaritan Temple on, xxi, xxxviii
Mount Moriah, 176
Mount Seir, 32, 251, 281
Mount Zion, xxxviii f.
Mulberry trees, 100
Music, the Levitical service of, lii, 305 f.
Musical guilds, xxiii, 145, 333
Muski, 5
Muṣri, 19, 172
Nabonidus (Nabu-na’id), 344, 351
Nabopolassar, 344, 350
Nabulus, 49
nāgīd, 33, 92, 295
naḥal, 252
Names, significant, 24, 145 f.; lists of, in oriental Histories, 1 f., 79
Nathan the prophet, 113, 168, 207, 305
Navy, 206
nēbhel, 96 f.
Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadrezzar), 347 f., 351
Neco I and II, 327, 336, 343 f.
nēr (nīr), 259
Neriglissar (Nergalšar-uṣur), 351
Nethinim, 65, 137
New Testament (passages of) referred to: Matthew i. 3‒6, 15
Matthew i. 7, 23
Matthew v. 22, 293
Matthew v. 39, 244
Matthew xxiii. 35, lviii, 277
Matthew xxv. 15, 290
Mark ii. 26, 102
Mark ix. 43, 293
Mark xi. 2, 7, 96
Mark xvi. 1, 235
Luke i. 5, 143
Luke i. 7, 266
Luke ii. 36, 335
Luke iii. 31, 22
Luke vii. 44‒46, 297
Luke xi. 51, 277
Luke xii. 55, 192
Luke xv. 18, 21, 296, 321
Luke xix. 4, 172
John i. 45, 16
John iii. 27, 296
John xi. 54, 222
John xii. 3, 7, 235
John xviii. 1, 303
John xix. 39, 40, 235
Acts vii. 60, 278
Acts viii. 40, 287
Acts ix. 32, 27
Acts xii. 1, 228
Acts xii. 21, 159
Acts xii. 23, 222
Acts xiii. 2, 138
Acts xxi. 37, 163
Acts xxii. 24, 163
Romans i. 1, 138
Romans xi. 2, xxxii
Galatians i. 15, 138
2 Thessalonians ii. 11, 243
1 Timothy iii. 15, 114
Hebrew ii. 16, 297
1 John i. 9, 215
Revelation ii. 20, 335
Revelation xxi, 12‒16, 182
Nimrod, 7
Nineveh, 327
Nisan, the first month, 89, 301, 310, 339
Nobles, the, 273
Numbering of the people, see David
Numbers high in Chronicles, xlix, 92, 133, 135 ff., 164 f., 178, 195, 204, 210, 218 f., 221 f., 225 f., 239, 281, 294
ōb, 325
Obelisk of Shalmaneser II, 122, 206
Oblations (tᵉrūmāh) 314
Obsolete English words: At (after verbs of asking), 241
Grave (verb = carve), 174
Magnifical, 134
Play (= dance), 96, 106
Polls (= heads), 137
Skill (verb), 174, 333
Oded,
229, 295 f.
ōhel, 197, 274
Omar, the Mosque of, 181
‘ōnēn, 325
Onyx, 164
Ophel, 291, 328
Ophir, 164, 202, 257
Oracle, the, 180, 185, 187
Ornan, 131, 177
Osorkon, 226
Overseers, 173, 176, 333
P, or “Priestly” narrative, xx, 2 f.
paḥōth, 205
Palace, the, 163, 166
Palmyra, 199
Paphos, the temple of, 180
Parbar, 151
Parvaim, 178
Passover, the, of Hezekiah, 308 ff.; of Josiah, 310, 320, 339 ff.
Pelethites, 120, 167
Pentateuch, the, xiv, xx, 238, 337 ff.
Perfect heart, a, 93, 160, 165 f., 231, 248
Pestilence, 130 f.
Petrie, W. M. Flinders, History of Egypt, 226, 344
Philistines, the original seats of the, 7; war with the, 74, 99 ff., 126, 286 f., 297; invasion by, 262 f.
Phinehas, 69
Phœnician language, 173
Physicians, 235
Pillar, 271
Pillars (Jachin and Boaz), 179 f., 184
Plague, 193
Play on words, 15, 57, 254, 282
Poll-tax, 274, 347
Porch of the Temple, 177
Porters, see Doorkeepers
Posts (= runners), 309
Precious stones, 178
Priesthood, the double, 102, 167
Priests, 51 f., 303, 307, 312 ff.; courses of, 66; sons of the, 71; David’s organisation of the, 141 ff.
Princes of the sanctuary, 142
Princes of the tribes of Israel, 155
Prophetess, 335
Psaltery, 96, 103, 146, 188, 204
Psalms xcvi, cv, cvi,
Pul, 34, 37
Punt (Put), 6
Rabbah, 121, 125
Ramoth-gilead, 51, 240, 245
Rechabites, the, 21
Recorder (= chronicler), 120, 332
Rehoboam, 211 ff.
Rephaim, 126 f.; valley of, 81, 99
Rhodians, 5
River, the (= the Euphrates), 13, 206
Robertson Smith, W., Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 16; Religion of the Semites, 83, 180, 213, 219, 224
Robinson’s Arch, 150
Ruler of the house of God, the, 66, 315, 340
Ryle,
Genesis, referred to, 2 f., 6; (on Ezra and Nehemiah), 143, 163, 273, 296, 334 f.; Prayer of Manasses, 328
Sabbath, 351
Sackcloth, 131
Sacrifice,
consumed by fire from heaven, 195; daily morning and evening, 141, 276; sevenfold, made by Hezekiah, 304; of thank offerings and burnt offerings, 306 f.; of peace offerings, 106, 132, 307, 328
St Mary’s Well, 323 f., 327
Salt, covenant of, 219; the valley of, 119, 281
Samaria, 266, 309
Samaritan schism, the, xxi, xxxviii
Samuel, the descent of, 41; the seer, 70, 168, 234
Sargon, 309, 317
Satan (= the Adversary), 128
Saul, genealogy of, 62 f., 72;
defeat, death and burial of, 73 ff.
Saws, 126
Scorpion, 209
Scribe, 120, 142, 157
Sea of the Temple, the, 119, 181 f., 184, 300
Seer, 70, 168, 234
Sennacherib, threatened invasion by, 316 ff.
sēpher hattōrah, 338
Septuagint, the, version of Chronicles, lviii f.
Shalmaneser, 122, 206, 309
Sharon, 35; the great maritime plain, 156
Sheba, 6 f.; Queen of, 202 ff.
shēbhet, 83
Shechem, 48, 56, 207
shelaḥ, 270, 319
shĕlāṭīm, 118, 270
Shemaiah, 210, 215
Sheminith, set to the, 104
Shephēlāh, 156, 172, 207, 288, 298
Shewbread, 71 f., 139, 141, 162, 174, 221, 304
Shields of gold, 118, 205, 270, 323
Shihor, brook of, 96
Shishak, invasion by, 214 ff.
Siloam, the Lower Pool of, 318
Singers, the families of the, xvi, xlii, 38, 42, 104, 145 ff., 341
ṣinnah, 205
sippim, 269
Slings, 288
Smith, G. A.,
Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 74 f., 81, 83, 171, 184, 192, 207, 212, 226, 249 f., 255, 294, 297; Jerusalem, 78 f., 163, 288, 291, 318 f., 324, 327;
(in Encyclopedia Biblia), 118; Early Poetry of Israel, 294
Sojourners, 165 f.
Solomon, 133 ff., 160 ff.; twice crowned, 167; great sacrifice of, 169 f.; vision of, 170 f.; horses and chariots of, 171 f.; makes preparations for building the Temple, 173 ff.; begins to build the Temple, 176 ff.; brings the Ark into the sanctuary, 186 f.; blessing and prayer of, 189 ff.; the night vision of, 197 f.; cities of, 198 ff.; arrangements of, for the Temple worship, 201 f.; the fleet of, 202; the greatness of, 204 ff.
Sorcery, 325
Spices, 204, 235
Stir up the spirit, 37, 262, 352
Store cities, 233, 238
Strangers, see Aliens
Suburbs, 47, 95, 212, 316
Sun-images, 224, 331
Sycomore,
156, 172, 207
Syria, Syrians, 9, 17, 116, 124; invasion by, 278
Syriac Version, the, lix
Syro-Ephraimite war, the, 294 f.
Tabali, 5
Tabernacle, 70, 94, 133, 274 f.
Tabor, 50
Tadmor, 199
Tamar, 199
ṭaph, 252
Tarshish (= Tartessus), 5, 54, 205 f., 257 f.
Tarsus, 5
Task-work, 126, 134, 200
Tekoa, 18, 26, 254
Tell el-Amarna letters, 5, 58, 78, 121, 212
Teman, 11
Temple, the, gates of, 68, 268 f., 272 f., 291; David’s preparations for building, 133 ff.; measurements of, 134, 177; the pattern of, 161 ff.; Solomon prepares to build, 173 ff.; description of, 176 ff.; dedication of, 186; restoration of, 274 ff.; cleansing of, 301 ff.; repair of, 332 ff.; Cyrus decrees the rebuilding of, 351 f.
Tenderhearted, 220
Tent, 69, 94, 101, 106, 186, 274
tĕrū‘ah, 106, 230
tĕrūmāh, 314
Testimony, the, 270 f., 274
Text of Chronicles, the, xxii, lviii, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 27, 28, 35, 41, 42, 46, 49, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 68, 82, 85, 115, 182, 214, 217, 227, 248, 255, 259, 323, 336
Thistle (= thorn), 283
Threshing-floor, 97, 131 f., 242
Thucydides referred to, xlviii
Tigris, 122
Tilgath-pilneser (Tiglath-pileser), 34, 37, 292, 297 ff., 309
Times (= changes, opportunities), 93, 168
Tisri, the seventh month, 186
Tithe, 313 f.
Titus, Arch of, 230
tōrah, 191, 228, 338
Torrey, C. C., Ezra Studies, xxxiii f., xlvi, lviii, lx, 38, 218, 237, 264 f., 343, 345
Treasuries, the, 161
Trees, large, 76, 294
Tree-worship, 224
Trumpets, silver, 105, 112, 188, 196, 221, 230, 305
Tyre, 5, 8, 134
Tyrseni, 5
Uriah, 86, 120
Urim and Thummim, 99
Uzziah, 285 ff.
Valley of salt, the, 119, 281
Veil of the Temple, the, 179
Ventriloquism, 325
Vessels of gold, 185 f.
Vulgate, the, lix
Wardrobe, keeper of the, 335
Wellhausen, J., references to, lvi, lix, 20, 237, 271
Wilson’s Arch, 150
Wrath, 247, 249, 277, 323
Zadok, 39 f., 92, 102, 111, 142, 155, 167, 314
Zechariah, martyrdom of,
Zedekiah the king, 349 f.
Zedekiah the prophet, 242, 244
Zemaraim, the battle of, 218 ff.
Zerah the Ethiopian, 225 f.
Zidon, Zidonians, 8, 134
Ziz, 252
Zobah, 116 f., 122, 124, 199
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
WESTERN ASIA (EARLY TIMES)
Cambridge University Press.
Copyright Cambridge University Press.
