Original
Executive–Legislative Policymaking Under Crisis
Abstract
Does conventional wisdom explain policymaking during a domestic crisis on a novel issue? We consider executive–legislative interactions in the American states during the COVID-19 pandemic to address problems in the study of unilateral executive action. Empirical analyses of crisis policymaking often examine wartime presidents or localized natural disasters but confront difficulties in identifying the status quo policy. COVID-19 created a large-scale domestic crisis and a status quo that was known with relative certainty. We develop a canonical theoretical account of executive–legislative interaction and test it using COVID-19 executive orders issued and legislation introduced and passed during 2020 to 2022. Results show that governors’ proposals met expectations, but legislatures’ responses did not. Instead, partisanship and ideological factors, which crystallized over time, largely determined legislative policy choices. We conclude that standard theory does not adequately account for preference dynamics that might emerge due to delays between the executive’s proposal and the legislature’s response.
中文
危机中的行政—立法政策制定
摘要
传统智慧能否解释在一项新议题上的国内危机期间的政策制定?我们考察美国各州在COVID-19大流行期间的行政—立法互动,以回应单边行政行动研究中的问题。关于危机政策制定的实证分析往往考察战时总统或地方性自然灾害,但在识别现状政策方面面临困难。COVID-19造成了一场大规模国内危机,并形成了一个相对确定可知的现状政策。我们提出一个关于行政—立法互动的经典理论解释,并利用2020年至2022年间发布的COVID-19行政命令以及提出和通过的法案对其进行检验。结果表明,州长的提案符合预期,但立法机构的回应并不符合预期。相反,随时间逐渐固化的党派性和意识形态因素在很大程度上决定了立法政策选择。我们得出结论:标准理论未能充分解释因行政提案与立法回应之间的延迟而可能出现的偏好动态。
关键词
行政—立法互动、危机政策制定、COVID-19、美国各州、单边行政行动、党派性、意识形态、偏好动态