In this illuminating edited volume, Jeffrey Jenkins and Eric Patashnik bring together an all-star cast of American politics scholars to analyze the origins and development of legislation over time. Taking the view that “legislation is a living, breathing force in American politics,” (Jenkins and Patashnik, 5), the authors seek to place legislation (rather than simply the process of enacting laws) at the center of the study of American politics. Indeed, a central theme of the essays in this volume is that scholarship has heretofore placed too much focus on the enactment of legislation, giving short shrift to the complex processes by which (1) legislative initiatives are formulated prior to enactment and (2) enacted laws evolve over time. The included chapters thus focus on the questions “what happens before legislative adoption and what happens after the dramatic moment of legislative enactment (p.6)?”

A few of the chapters in the volume primarily address the first question, but most mainly tackle the second. Concluding essays by David Mayhew and Sidney Milkis summarize the major findings and draw out implications for the analysis of legislation and the study of American politics, more broadly. Considered jointly, the essays in Living Legislation emphasize three critical themes. First, they underscore the fact that lawmaking is a complex and ongoing activity in which sub rosa processes of agenda-setting and negotiation prior to lawmaking, and subtle readjustments of existing policy post-enactment, are just as—if not more—important than the high-profile conflicts that usually attend the passage of laws. Ironically, the importance of these pre- and post-enactment processes means that political “winners” may be less powerful than we might expect, and political “losers” may be more potent than we often assume. Thus, for example, Jeffrey Cohen and Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha’s interesting chapter demonstrates that ascendant presidents’ legislative agendas are profoundly circumscribed by existing policy commitments, while Stuart Chinn’s valuable essay reveals that ostensible losers in legislative struggles can become winners by working through alternative institutional channels to limit the scope of laws contrary to their interests.

Second, the essays indicate that the outcomes of subterranean battles both before and after legislative enactment are historically determined—either by developmental processes or existing institutional commitments (or both). On the pre-enactment side of the equation, an impressive essay by Sean Gailmard and Jeffrey Jenkins demonstrates that party coalitions become less innovative as they grow more durable, passing fewer major laws as they age. This finding reminds us that all legislative battles are not created equal—a fresh political coalition possesses major advantages (most notably, internal consensus on programmatic matters) that it lacks in its later years. On the post-enactment side, several of the chapters testify to the paradoxical nature of institutions as both pillars of continuity and sites of creativity and change. Vesla Weaver’s study of the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1968—widely viewed as a misguided and short-lived response to 1960s-era fear of civil disorder—reveals that even failed policies can “lock-in” particular programmatic trajectories. Indeed, she argues that the law “set off several policy feedback loops that transformed state capacity and infrastructure and reinforced the punitive path” in criminal justice policymaking for several decades (p. 222). In contrast, Eric Patashnik’s examination of the decline of the 1986 Tax Reform Act suggests that even ostensible policy successes can quickly succumb if they fail to change the policy system or engender broad political support.

Third, the chapters in Living Legislation highlight just how much politics—especially politics today—revolves around ongoing struggles over amending and implementing existing laws (as opposed to generating new legislation). This is suggestive of a major shift in the politics of policymaking, whereby authoritative legislating by Congress has increasingly given way to an interminable bureaucratic politics in which Congress, presidents, federal bureaucrats, courts, states, and political activists continually vie for influence over the administration of existing programs. Indeed, as Christopher Berry, Barry Burden, and William Howell show in their chapter, party coalitions continue to fight over established policies long after their enactment, with huge consequences for the budgets, and even survival, of programs. The intensity and duration of these post-enactment struggles point to an even more profound change in American politics—the dramatic rise in expectations for continual federal involvement in American economy and society since the early 1900s, and especially since the 1960s. A thoughtful essay by William Novak traces the intellectual developments that have paved the way for the administrative state we know today.

Considered as a whole, the essays in Living Legislation make a strong case for looking “beyond legislative productivity,” as Forrest Maltzman and Charles Shipan put it in their contribution, to the broader politics of agenda-setting and programmatic evolution that bracket the formal lawmaking process. The chapters are, as a rule, splendid examples of this type of scholarship. It is unclear, however, whether the volume’s emphasis on pre- and post-enactment politics is breaking new theoretical ground or ratifying a growing consensus about the importance of analyzing policymaking over the longue duree. Arguably, researchers studying policymaking in the agenda-setting tradition, from John Kingdon to Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, have long been attentive to how long-term processes have shaped prospects for political actors’ programmatic agendas. Likewise, historically-oriented scholars such as Stephen Skowronek, Jacob Hacker, and Kathleen Thelen have sought to draw greater attention to how policies evolve following enactment. Considered in light of this scholarship, the contributions in Living Legislation provide further grounds for investigating the subterranean politics that both precede and follow major reforms.

The volume’s methodological pluralism also raises interesting questions that it does not completely answer. An unusual feature of this text is its juxtaposition of large-scale quantitative analyses of legislative agendas and outcomes with qualitative studies of particular historical cases. The editors argue that this is a major advantage, because “there is tremendous value added produced by looking at a single phenomenon from different methodological perspectives” (p. 18). Given that political research is often segregated on methodological grounds, it was refreshing to read a volume in which a variety of approaches were represented. However, in reading Living Legislation I noticed that the various contributors tended to hew to one methodological approach or another. As a result, there was little direct engagement between practitioners of different methods, nor was there much discussion of how methodological practices should advance. In my view, the pertinent question is not only whether scholars of policy development can honor diverse methodological commitments, but whether they can generate additional insights by combining different methods in novel ways.

Living Legislation is an admirable volume that extends our understanding of how public policies emerge and evolve. Its sophisticated attention to the wayward development of major laws following enactment is a major contribution. The chapters are uniformly excellent, showcasing a diverse array of ingenious approaches to answering important questions about the policy process. Both quantitative and qualitative scholars will find much to ponder and debate within its pages, as well as valuable materials for use in graduate and advanced undergraduate courses.