Bicameral Lawmaking: Analysing the Choices of Revising Chambers

Abstract

AbstractThis article examines the choices made by revising chambers in bicameral congresses. It analyses how bill characteristics, chamber congruence, impatience and institutional context influence the decisions made by revising chambers regarding executive bills sent by the chamber of origin. The analysis focuses on the case of Chile, a presidential country in which the executive has substantial proposal power. The findings show that the probability of a bill passing with amendments is higher when it receives a presidential urgency and when the revising chamber is the Senate. Executive bills coming out of the Finance Committee are more likely than others to pass unamended. However, those bills are more likely to die in committee when the revising chamber is the Senate (i.e. the chamber whose membership has a longer time horizon).