Race, Policy Responsiveness, and Dyadic Representation in U.S. Lawmaking

• In Event: Accountability, Representation, and Responsiveness in the Congress

Abstract

Does race shape policy outcomes in the United States? To determine whether Congress does what different types of citizens want, we link bill-specific public opinion from the Cooperative Election Study (CES) to a diverse set of more than 140 federal bills and roll-call votes over 17 years. For each bill, we assess how well lawmaking outcomes align with the preferences of Black, Asian, Latino, and White citizens. Surprisingly, we find limited differences across these groups in “policy responsiveness.” Members of each racial group get what they want on policy roughly the same amount of time. These aggregate findings, however, obscure dramatic heterogeneity. Under Republican party control, Black, Latino, and Asian citizens win significantly less often than do White citizens. Those losses are made up by small advantages under Democratic party control. Thus, representation for people of color depends crucially on which party holds power. To better explain these stark differences, we delve into “dyadic representation”—whether members of Congress vote in line with their constituents’ preferences. We find that racial threat and racial resentment shape representation. In line with racial threat, Black and Latino representation actually worsens as each group makes up a larger share of constituents. Similarly, racial gaps in responsiveness increase as the level of racial resentment amongst the public increases. Race matters in American policy making in both complex and troubling ways.

Authors

• George Agustin Markarain, Loyola University, Chicago

• Zoltan L. Hajnal, University of California, San Diego

• Jacob S. Hacker, Yale University

• Mackenzie Lockhart, Yale University