thusly concerned with the hearings, testimony, and drafting process of bill-making and not just (Baumgartner and Jones 2002). Where think tanks impact the policy writing process is through the information gathering and position defending parts of legislative development. Since members of Congress are devoting more and more time to campaigning (Fleisher and Bond 2004), they have less time resources at their disposal to properly adjudicate the merits of a given policy (Adler 2002). The amount of information presented at Congressional hearings is increasing overall, even as the value of any given testimony has declined, partially because of the increase in the legislative workload and partially because of the increase in aggregate sources called to testify (Adler 2002; Diermeier and Feddersen 2000). tanks add to the narrative of the policy agendas literature by informing the content of testimony, which explains the seemingly paradoxical decline in legislative time devoted to lawmaking with the increase in the number of committee hearings. Think tanks are vital to the effective transmission of information in the pursuit of transforming ideas into actual legislation, since such bills serve as for policy ideas (Adler “vehicles” and Wilkerson 2012). The information transmission model of legislative idea diffusion (Wilkerson, Smith and Stramp 2015) suggests a major influx of ideas at the committee hearing level, which is where think tanks would be able to most directly exert influence. While there have been attempts to integrate a similar framework for interest groups (Grossmann 2012; Hansen 1991; Baumgartner et al 2008), no attempts have been made to do this with non-lobbying organizations. A policy intensive theory of legislative behavior requires a role for think tanks to be comprehensive.
thusly concerned with the hearings, testimony, and drafting process of bill-making and not just (Baumgartner and Jones 2002). Where think tanks impact the policy writing process is through the information gathering and position defending parts of legislative development. Since members of Congress are devoting more and more time to campaigning (Fleisher and Bond 2004), they have less time resources at their disposal to properly adjudicate the merits of a given policy (Adler 2002). The amount of information presented at Congressional hearings is increasing overall, even as the value of any given testimony has declined, partially because of the increase in the legislative workload and partially because of the increase in aggregate sources called to testify (Adler 2002; Diermeier and Feddersen 2000). tanks add to the narrative of the policy agendas literature by informing the content of testimony, which explains the seemingly paradoxical decline in legislative time devoted to lawmaking with the increase in the number of committee hearings. Think tanks are vital to the effective transmission of information in the pursuit of transforming ideas into actual legislation, since such bills serve as “vehicles” for policy ideas (Adler and Wilkerson 2012). The information transmission model of legislative idea diffusion (Wilkerson, Smith and Stramp 2015) suggests a major influx of ideas at the committee hearing level, which is where think tanks would be able to most directly exert influence. While there have been attempts to integrate a similar framework for interest groups (Grossmann 2012; Hansen 1991; Baumgartner et al 2008), no attempts have been made to do this with non-lobbying organizations. A policy intensive theory of legislative behavior requires a role for think tanks to be comprehensive.