This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by MacDonald, J. A. Articles by Franko, W. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Bureaucratic Capacity and Bureaucratic Discretion

Does Congress Tie Policy Authority to Performance?

Kent State University

William W. Franko, JR

Kent State University

This article assesses whether the managerial capacity of agencies influences the volume of policy authority that lawmakers delegate. Examining a sample of agencies whose managerial capacities were assessed along the same criteria, and allowing for the comparison of performance across agencies, we observe that poorly performing agencies are more likely to lose policy authority. Our findings suggest that lawmakers promote effective policymaking by giving agencies the incentive to perform well and that models of discretion that do not account for performance underestimate the effect of another factor—policy conflict between the legislative and executive branches—on how much discretion agencies receive.

Key Words: bureaucracy • Congress • public policy • bureaucratic discretion • agency capacity • delegation • policy authority

References

• Arnold, R.D. (1990). The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Bawn, K. (1995, March). Political control versus expertise: Congressional choices about administrative procedures. American Political Science Review, 89, 62-73.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Carpenter, D.P. (2000). Stochastic prediction and estimation of nonlinear political durations: An application to the lifetime of bureaus. In D. Richards (Ed.), Political complexity: Nonlinear models of politics (pp. 209-238). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Carpenter, D.P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Carpenter, D.P., & Lewis, D.E. (2004, Summer). Political learning from rare events: Poisson inference, fiscal constraints, and the lifetime of bureaus. Political Analysis, 12, 201-232.
• Epstein, D., & O'Halloran, S. (1999). Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Esterling, K.M. (2004). The political economy of expertise: Information and efficiency in American national institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Gormley, W. (1986). Regulatory issue networks in a federal system. Polity, 18(4), 595-620.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Gormley, W. (1989). Taming the bureaucracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Huber, J.D., & Shipan, C.R. (2002). Deliberate discretion: The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Huber, J.D., Shipan, C.R., & Pfahler, M. (2001, April). Legislatures and statutory control of the bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 330-345.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Ingraham, P., Joyce, P.K., & Donahue, A.K. (2003). Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• James, S.C. (2000). Presidents, parties, and the state: A party system perspective on democratic regulatory choice, 1884-1936. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Jones, B.D., & Baumgartner, F.R. (2005). The politics of attention: How governments prioritize problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Laurent, A. (1999, February 1). Stacking up. Government Executive, 31(2). Retrieved April 30, 2007, from http://www.govexec.com/gpp/0299over.htm
• Laurent, A. (2000, March 1). Measuring up. Government Executive, 32(3), 10-15. Retrieved April 30, 2007, from http://www.govexec.com/gpp/0300ov.htm
• Laurent, A. (2001, April 1). Managing for results. Government Executive, 33(4). Retrieved April 30, 2007, from http://www.govexec.com/fpp/fpp01/s1.htm
• Lewis, D.E. (2003). Presidents and the politics of agency design: Political insulation in the United States government bureaucracy, 1946-1997. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Lewis, D.E. (2005, September). Staffing alone: Unilateral action and the politicization of the executive office of the president, 1988-2004. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35, 496-514.[CrossRef]
• MacDonald, J.A. (2007). Competing agents: Managing policy through competition in the U.S. House of Representatives. Typescript, Kent State University, OH.
• McCubbins, M.D., Noll, R.G., & Weingast, B.R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243-277.[Free Full Text]
• McCubbins, M.D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 2, 165-179.
• Moe, T.M. (1985). The politicized presidency. In J. E. Chubb & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), New directions in American politics (pp. 235-271). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
• Moe, T.M. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. In J. E. Chubb & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), Can the government govern? (pp. 267-330). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
• Page, B.I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Potoski, M. (1999, October). Managing uncertainty through bureaucratic design: Administrative procedures and state air pollution control agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 623-639.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Ringquist, E.J., Worsham, J., & Eisner, M.A. (2003). Salience, complexity, and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 141-164.[Abstract]
• Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2003, January 5). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results (version 2.1). Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://gking.harvard.edu
• VandeHei, J. (2005, September 5). Officials deal with political fallout by pointing fingers. The Washington Post, p. A17.
• Volden, C. (2002, January). A formal model of the politics of delegation in a separation of powers system. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 111-133.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Weisman, J., & Goldstein, A. (2005, September 8). Bush requests $51.8 billion more for relief; GOP leaders launch inquiry on Katrina preparation and response. The Washington Post, pp. A1+.
• Wood, B.D., & Bohte, J. (2004, February). Political transaction costs and the politics of administrative design. Journal of Politics, 66, 176-202.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

American Politics Research, Vol. 35, No. 6, 790-807 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X07301654


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by MacDonald, J. A. Articles by Franko, W. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?