Rejoinder to Passé-Smith

Authors

  • Byron W. Daynes
  • Glen Sussman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1994.15.0.99-103

Abstract

We appreciate the careful reading that Professor John Passe-Smith has given our article, and generally value his perspectives. Moreover, after a thorough reading of his criticisms, we have concluded that our respective understandings of fast tracking may not be as far removed from one another as first might appear. All three of us, for instance, could probably agree that: (1) the two institutions (President and Congress) brought together by fast tracking share different perspectives on trade policy, as most clearly exhibited in the 1930s with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (Schattschneider 1935); (2) fast tracking encourages a distinct relationship between these institutions, dissimilar from treaty making and the executive agreement; and (3) we need to examine some empirical evidence supporting our assertion that fast tracking makes it difficult for members of Congress to represent and speak for their constituents on trade matters.

References

Bonior, David E. 15 December 1993. Interview (tape recorded), H107 Capitol, Washington. DC.

Bradsher, Keith. 1991. Gephardt Backs Efforts on Trade with Mexico. New York Times 10 May: D2.

Passe-Smith. John. 1994. Comment: Trade Politics—A Debate. American Review o f Politics IV 89-97.

Schattschneider, E.E. 1935. Politics, Pressures and the Tariff: A Study o f Free Private Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in the 1929-1930 Revision o f the Tariff. New York: Prentice- Hall.

Downloads

Published

1994-04-01

Issue

Section

Articles