Measuring the Stasis: Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and Partisan Polarization

• In Event: Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and Comparative Political Institutions

Abstract

The American policy process is characterized by a pattern known as “Punctuated Equilibrium.” This pattern manifests as periods of stasis (often known as “gridlock”), interspersed with large periods of change (Jones and Baumgartner 2005). Policy change happens, often in leaps and bounds, but it happens infrequently. Increasingly, American political institutions are also characterized by high levels of partisanship. Partisan polarization – the distance between the most extreme politicians in either party – has increased steadily, particularly beginning in the mid-1990s, and the gulf between these members seems to widen every day (Theriault 2013). But what impact does partisan polarization have on the pattern of stasis and punctuation in American policymaking?

Punctuated equilibrium is based on the idea that friction in the policy process and uneven information processing, both at the individual and institutional levels, results in a policy process that over- and underreacts to problems (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). Partisan polarization is one of many sources of friction. Affirming the role of polarization as a source of friction, research on gridlock suggests that the distribution of policy views across the major parties, and between them, contributes to legislative performance (Binder 1999). Thus, as polarization increases in the American political system, it must also be increasing friction in the policy process.
This paper argues that as parties in Congress have experienced increased polarization, the policy process has become longer, exaggerating patterns of stasis and punctuation – the periods of stasis being more prolonged and punctuations less frequent. In other words, the friction in the process, and therefore the over- and under-reactions of the system, are greater. In sum, increased partisan polarization in Congress amplifies existing patterns of punctuated equilibrium.

We test this theory using data from the Comparative Agendas Project on the federal budget and Congressional issue attention (hearings). The relative force of punctuations versus statis in policymaking is typically measured using kurtosis scores. We examine how the kurtosis scores for issues that have become increasingly polarized – environmental policy and criminal justice policy – change from the 1970s to the 2000s. If our theory holds that polarization is a source of friction, and thus extends periods of statis and the strength of punctuations, we should see increasingly leptokurtic (i.e., peaked) distributions of issue attention and budget changes across the time studied.

Authors

• Clare Brock, Texas Woman's University

• Daniel J Mallinson, Penn State, Harrisburg