Show simple item record

Arms Control and Strategic Arms Voting in the U.S. Senate

dc.contributor.authorWayman, Frank Whelonen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-13T19:59:27Z
dc.date.available2010-04-13T19:59:27Z
dc.date.issued1985en_US
dc.identifier.citationWayman, Frank (1985). "Arms Control and Strategic Arms Voting in the U.S. Senate." Journal of Conflict Resolution 29(2): 225-251. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/67972>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0022-0027en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/67972
dc.description.abstractThis article examines the basis of U.S. Senate support for defense spending and arms control from 1967 to 1983. Some of the findings include the following: Those senators still in office at the end of the 1970s voted the same way on SALT II as they had on ABM limitation in the late 1960s, so no long-term change occurred in the senators' positions on these arms control issues. In contrast, the considerable freedom that senators have to stake out a position of their choice on the hawk/dove continuum can be seen in the weak coefficients of determination between a senator's position and those of his or her predecessors and contemporary fellow senator from the same state. As for the military-industrial complex, traces of its influence are, during the 1970s, at best weakly associated with a senator's hawkishness or dovishness. There are indications of a modest effect of defense-related PACs on roll-call voting in the early 1980s. Although this is cause for concern about the future, other evidence in the article undermines belief in the military-industrial complex model.en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent2374130 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.titleArms Control and Strategic Arms Voting in the U.S. Senateen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPolitical Scienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelGovernment, Politics and Lawen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumPolitical Science Department, University of Michigan, Dearbornen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/67972/2/10.1177_0022002785029002004.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0022002785029002004en_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Conflict Resolutionen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAnderson, J. (1982) Bankrupting America: The Tax Burden and Expenditures of the Pentagon by Congressional District. Lansing, MI: Employment Research Associates.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAnderson, M. (1982) The Empty Pork Barrel: Unemployment and the Pentagon Budget. Lansing, MI: Employment Research Associates.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArnold, R. D. (1979) Congress and the Bureaucracy. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarone, M., G. Ujifusa, and D. Matthews (1979) The Almanac of American Politics 1980. New York: E. P. Dutton.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBernstein, R. and W. Anthony (1974) “The ABM issue in the Senate, 1968-1970: the importance of ideology.”Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.68: 1198-1206.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurstein, P. and W. Freudenberg (1977) “Ending the Vietnam war: components of change in Senate voting on Vietnam war bills.”Amer. J. of Sociology82: 991-1006.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClausen, A. (1973) How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: St. Martin's.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCommon Cause (1976) 1974 Congressional Campaign Finances. Vol. 1—Senate Races. Washington, DC: Common Cause.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCongressional Quarterly (1983) CQ Weekly Report. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCongressional Quarterly (1977) CQ Weekly Report. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDepartment of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for Information, Operations, and Reports (1979) 100 Companies: Companies Receiving the Largest Dollar Volume of Military Prime Contract Awards—Fiscal Year 1978. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThe Economist (1983) “Till may be out.” (March 12): 11-13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein, E. (1980) “Business and labor under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,” in M. Malbin (ed.) Parties, Interest Groups, and Campaign Finance Laws. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFederal Election Commission (n.d.) Committee Index of Candidates Supported (77-78 and 81-82). Printout from computer tape. Washington, DC: FEC.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFenno, R. (1977) “U.S. House members in their constituencies.”Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.71: 883-917.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJacobson, G. (1980) Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKingdon, J. (1973) Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York: Harper & Row.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeontief, W., A. Morgan, K. Polenske, D. Simpson, and E. Tower (1965) “The economic impact—industrial and regional—of an arms cut.”Rev. of Economics and Statistics47, 3: 217-222.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMayhew, D. (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller, W. and D. Stokes (1963) “Constituency influence in Congress.”Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.57: 45-56.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMitchell, E. (1979) “The basis of congressional energy policy.”Texas Law Rev.57, 4: 591-613.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOlson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePoole, K. (1981) “Dimensions of interest group evaluation of the U.S. Senate, 1969-1978.”Amer. J. of Pol. Sci.25: 49-67.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRussett, B. (1970) What Price Vigilance?New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.