LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH AND LEGISLATIVE REFORM: EVALUATING REGIME POLICY

Abstract

It is often said that it is in the realm of regime policy that political scientists have most extensively contributed to public policy analysis. The political system's constitutional rules and institutional structures have been major objects of political research, while the substance of public policy, or the consequences of substantive public policy, have been analyzed much less extensively. Promontories of the regimethe party system, the presidential election system, apportionment of legislatures, congressional and state legislative organization-have been traditional targets of inquiry, sometimes diagnosis, and occasionally agenda for institutional change. The general problem is, of course, to juxtapose goals, purposes, or functions on the one side, and capability, effectiveness, or performance on the other, and then to assess political institutions in terms of how well they meet their goals, fulfill their purposes, or perform their functions. In the case of American state legislatures, the professional and quasi-professional literature of political science fairly abounds in various attempts to evaluate legislative capability or effectiveness, and recommend institutional changes. Political scientists can claim only very modest success in connection with their involvement in movements to effect changes in regime policies. Particularly in the case of state legislative reform, the research contribution made by political scientists has been distinctively modest. To the greatest extent, this is probably due to the fact that other, more theoretical concerns have preoccupied political scientists, but to some extent it is the case because of conceptual and methodological difficulties. The implications for political science research relevant to state legislative reorganization which are widely