Representative Communication: Web Site Interactivity and Distributional Path Dependence in the U.S. Congress

We examine the speed and extent to which members of the U.S. House of Representatives adopt emerging Web-based communication technologies. Given the growing centrality of communication for governance and the Web's growing role in effective public outreach, a rational actor approach would suggest that members of Congress should aggressively exploit online communication technology. And this should especially be true for freshman members. We test these expectations using two waves of data coded from the official Web sites of the U.S. House of Representatives, for the years 2006 and 2007. We observe that incumbents show considerable path dependence in their Web site technology adoptions, while the sites of the freshmen who won election in 2006 are largely independent of the Web designs of their corresponding predecessors. This independence does not mean, however, that freshmen are fully exploiting communication technology. Instead, the Web design practices of freshmen appear to be governed by the distribution of existing practices among incumbents, a process we label “distributional path dependence.” This surprising null finding suggests that members have Web-based communication practices that are governed by informal norms socially constructed among congressional offices and that the institution is slow to adapt to emerging communication technologies.

[1]  D. Brady,et al.  Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting , 2002, American Political Science Review.

[2]  L. Fowler Congressional Communication: Content and Consequences , 2005, Perspectives on Politics.

[3]  Michael C. Munger,et al.  Comparing Interest Group PAC Contributions to House and Senate Incumbents, 1980-1986 , 1993, The Journal of Politics.

[4]  Daniel M. Butler A regression discontinuity design analysis of the incumbency advantage and tenure in the U.S. House , 2009 .

[5]  A. Gelman,et al.  Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias , 1990 .

[6]  Robert C. Lieberman,et al.  Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change , 2002, American Political Science Review.

[7]  Richard F. Fenno Home Style : House Members in Their Districts , 1978 .

[8]  G. Garson,et al.  Digital Government: Principles and Best Practices , 2003 .

[9]  Peter A. Bloniarz,et al.  Some assembly required: building a digital government for the 21 st century , 2000 .

[10]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[11]  Internet Use in the State Legislature , 2004 .

[12]  James N. Druckman,et al.  The Technological Development of Congressional Candidate Web Sites , 2007 .

[13]  G. King,et al.  Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage , 1991, British Journal of Political Science.

[14]  G. Cox,et al.  How Much Is Majority Status in the U.S. Congress Worth? , 1999, American Political Science Review.

[15]  David R. Mayhew Congress: The Electoral Connection , 1975 .

[16]  Bartholomew H. Sparrow A Research Agenda for an Institutional Media , 2006 .

[17]  Bruce Bimber Information and American Democracy: Contents , 2003 .

[18]  M. Hindman,et al.  Campaign Politics and the Digital Divide , 2007 .

[19]  Alex Pentland,et al.  DakNet: rethinking connectivity in developing nations , 2004, Computer.

[20]  Peter M. Shane,et al.  Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet , 2004 .

[21]  Gary W. Cox,et al.  The Increasing Advantage of Incumbency in the U. S. States , 1993 .

[22]  Jennifer Todd,et al.  IISSSSCC DD IISSCCUUSSSSIIOONN PP AAPPEERR SS EERRIIEESS T HE R OOTS OF I NTENSE E THNIC C ONFLICT MAY NOT IN FACT BE E THNIC :C ATEGORIES , C OMMUNITIES AND P ATH D EPENDENCE Joseph , 2017 .

[23]  G. Garson,et al.  The promise of digital government , 2004 .

[24]  Brian F. Schaffner Local News Coverage and the Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House , 2006 .

[25]  E. Adler,et al.  The Home Style Homepage: Legislator Use of the World Wide Web for Constituency Contact , 1998 .

[26]  J. Goodliffe War Chests as Precautionary Savings , 2004 .

[27]  Kirsten A. Foot,et al.  Politics As Usual, or Politics Unusual? Position Taking and Dialogue on Campaign Websites in the 2002 U.S. Elections , 2005 .

[28]  J. Fountain Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change , 2001 .

[29]  Dennis W. Johnson Congress Online: Bridging the Gap Between Citizens and their Representatives , 2004 .

[30]  W. Wong,et al.  The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation , 1987 .

[31]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[32]  Richard A. Davis,et al.  Congress and the Internet , 1999 .

[33]  J. R. Alford,et al.  Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House , 1981, The Journal of Politics.

[34]  P. Pierson Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[35]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley On-Line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It , 2000 .

[36]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U. S. House , 1997 .

[37]  Peter Zemsky,et al.  Money Talks: Deterring Quality Challengers in Congressional Elections , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[38]  R. Pugliese,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication in the Arizona Legislature: Applying Media Richness Theory to Member and Staff Communication , 2005 .

[39]  Timothy Roscoe,et al.  The construction of the World Wide Web audience , 1999 .

[40]  Simon Jackman,et al.  Democracy as a Latent Variable , 2008 .

[41]  Robert S. Erikson The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections , 1971, Polity.

[42]  H. Pitkin The Concept of Representation , 1969 .

[43]  Mark C. Suchman Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches , 1995 .

[44]  Peter A. Bloniarz,et al.  Some assembly required: building a digital government for the 21st century , 1999, DG.O.

[45]  Juan Bautista Lucca,et al.  Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis , 2009 .

[46]  Peter A. Bloniarz,et al.  Some Assembly Required: Building a Digital Government for the 21st Century. Report of a Multidisciplinary Workshop Held in October 1998, , 1999 .

[47]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Social Science Computer Review , 2022 .

[48]  Larry M. Bartels Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test , 1986 .

[49]  Peter Congdon,et al.  Applied Bayesian Modelling , 2003 .

[50]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  Information and elections , 1997 .

[51]  Suhas Gangadhar Deshpande Review of: Pavlichev, Alexi and Garson, David G. (Eds). Digital government: principles and best practices. London: Idea Group Inc., 2004 , 2005, Inf. Res..

[52]  Bruce Bimber Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power , 2003 .