Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHarder, James Daviden_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-01T07:00:58Z
dc.date.available2018-12-01T07:00:58Z
dc.date.issued2017-06-08
dc.identifier.othervt_gsexam:10847en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/86201
dc.description.abstractState legislatures have variable levels of professionalism. Measures of state legislative professionalism typically include metrics such as the number of legislative staff, legislative session length, and legislator compensation. This research considers the influence of variability in levels of legislative professionalism on the state’s oversight process. Few prior studies engage the legislative oversight process in states. To fill this gap, this research takes a grounded theory approach that uses thirty-three interviews with legislators, legislative staff, committee staff, and legislative research organizations in five states to test existing concepts and to develop new directions for research. The current scholarship on oversight and legislative institutions emphasizes the importance of broad factors like elections and committees, as well as more specific concepts like inter-branch conflict, partisanship, and legislative term-limits. This research confirms and extends those ideas, reaching the conclusion that oversight in states is a deeply political action. A central contribution of this work is a consideration of how the oversight process in states operates on the ground. The interviews uncover that many measures of professionalism often perform in unforeseen ways than what might expected. For instance, a lengthy legislative session can prohibit oversight actors from performing oversight functions. Conversely, long legislative interim periods provide actors with the space to conduct meaningful reviews of administrative action. This research also advances understandings of state legislative research organizations – like the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission and Texas Sunset Commission – which play a vital role in performing meaningful legislative oversight. To catalyze these ideas a new concept, the oversight entrepreneur, is used to describe how stakeholders use the oversight process to achieve their preferences and enhance their reputations. The interviews contained here also expose the importance of each state’s individual context – including Constitutional, institutional, normed and historical factors. The dissimilarities that play out across states (and their secondary effects) demonstrate that future scholars would be well served to adopt caution in the application of concepts across contexts.en_US
dc.format.mediumETDen_US
dc.publisherVirginia Techen_US
dc.rightsThis item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. Some uses of this item may be deemed fair and permitted by law even without permission from the rights holder(s), or the rights holder(s) may have licensed the work for use under certain conditions. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights holder(s).en_US
dc.subjectlegislaturesen_US
dc.subjectstate politicsen_US
dc.subjectoversighten_US
dc.subjectlegislative-executive relationsen_US
dc.subjectqualitative methodsen_US
dc.subjectinterviewsen_US
dc.titleLegislative Oversight Processes in U.S. Statesen_US
dc.typeDissertationen_US
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Public and International Affairsen_US
dc.description.degreePh. D.en_US
thesis.degree.namePh. D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePublic Administration and Public Affairsen_US
dc.contributor.committeechairDull, Matthew Martinen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberRees, Joseph V.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberGoodsell, Charles T.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberCook, Brian J.en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record