Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T10:53:12.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representative democracy and policy-making in the administrative state: is agency policy-making necessarily better?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2013

George A. Krause
George A. Krause*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh, USA E-mail: gkrause@pitt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study focuses on how voters and politicians rationally select a preferred policy-making venue (Politician or Agency), and its implications for the principal-agent relationship between voters and politicians in a representative democracy. This study allows for incomplete information, as well as solving for the comparative static conditions pertaining to the extent that a politician's policy-making venue choices mirror those preferred by a representative voter. The comparative static results highlight when a politician (1) chooses the representative voter's preferred policy-making venue (Active or Passive Political Responsiveness); (2) is able to choose freely either policy-making venue without committing agency loss (Political Discretion); and (3) willing to deviate from the representative voter's preferred policy-making venue (Political Shirking). In contrast to the study by Spence, this study analytically demonstrates that one cannot infer that the benefits accrued from agency policy-making will necessarily exceed those from electoral institutions.

Keywords

administrative statedelegatepolicy-makingpolicy-making venuerepresentative democracytrustee
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , August 2013 , pp. 111 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, C. H. (1978) Measuring Representation. American Journal of Political Science 22: 475–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogh, B. (2009) A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, K. (1995) Political Control versus Expertise: Congressional Choices About Administrative Procedures. American Political Science Review 89: 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendor, J. B.Meirowitz, A. (2004) Spatial Models of Delegation. American Political Science Review 98: 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, A. M.Lynn, L. E. Jr (2006) Madison's Managers: Public Administration and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, T.Coate, S. (2003) Elected Versus Appointed Regulators: Theory and Evidence. Journal of the European Economic Association 10(2): 117–135.Google Scholar
Brehm, J.Gates, S. (1997) Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Responsiveness to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, J.Gates, S. (2011) Teaching, Tasks, and Trust: Functions of the Public Executive. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (1982) Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy Versus Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, M. (1981) The Founding of the Democratic Republic. Itasca, IL: Peacock Press.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1972) Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle. The Public Interest 28: 38–50.Google Scholar
Epstein, D.O'Halloran, S. (1999) Delegating Powers: A Transactions-Cost Approach to Policymaking under Separated Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, R. F. Jr (1978) Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston, MA: Brown, Little.Google Scholar
Gailmard, S.Patty, J. W. (2012) Learning While Governing: Expertise and Accountability in the Executive Branch. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, E. R., Lupia, A.McCubbins, M. D. (2004) When Does Government Limit the Impact of Voter Initiatives? The Politics of Implementation and Enforcement. Journal of Politics 66: 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodsell, C. T. (2004) The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic, 4th ed.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Gormley, W. T. (1986) The Representation Revolution: Reforming State Regulation through Public Representation. Administration & Society 18: 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gormley, W. T. (1989) Taming the Bureaucracy: Muscles, Prayers, and other Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. D.Shipan, C. R. (2002) Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathlene, L.Martin, J. A. (1991) Enhancing Citizen Participation: Panel Designs, Perspectives, and Policy Formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 10: 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettl, D. F.Milward, H. B. (eds.) (1986) The State of Public Management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Krause, G. A., Lewis, D. E.Douglas, J. W. (2013) Politics Can Limit Policy Opportunism in Fiscal Institutions: Evidence from Official General Fund Revenue Forecasts in the American States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32: 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, J. R.Phillips, J. H. (2012) The Democratic Deficit in the States. American Journal of Political Science 56: 148–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D. (1995) How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voters Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology. American Economic Review 86: 425–441.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. (1994) Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections. American Political Science Review 88: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A.McCubbins, M. D. (1994) Designing Bureaucratic Accountability. Law and Contemporary Problems 57(1): 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A.McCubbins, M. D. (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mashaw, J. L. (1998) Greed, Chaos, and Governance: Using Public Choice to Improve Public Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T.Rosenthal, H. (2006) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., Weingast, B. R. (1989) Structure and Process as Solutions to the Politicians' Principal-Agent Problem. Virginia Law Review 74: 431–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. M. ND. Administering Representation: The Role of Elected Administrators in Translating Citizens’ Preferences into Public Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (Forthcoming). http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/10/26/jopart.mus046.full.pdf+html.Google Scholar
Moe, T. M. (1985a) The Politicized Presidency. In Chubb, J. E. and Peterson P. E. (eds.), New Directions in American Politics. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 235–271.Google Scholar
Moe, T. M. (1985b) Control and Feedback in Economic Regulation: The Case of the NLRB. American Political Science Review 79: 1094–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, D. C. (1996) Constitutional Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, D.Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (1996) The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H. (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohr, J. A. (1986) To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Rosener, J. (1982) Making Bureaucrats Responsive: A Study of the Impact of Citizen Participation and Staff Recommendations on Regulatory Decision Making. Public Administration Review 42: 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, C. R. (2004) Regulatory Regimes, Agency Actions, and the Conditional Nature of Political Influence. American Political Science Review 98: 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, D. B. (2003) The Benefits of Agency Policy-making: Perspectives from Positive Theory. In Krause, G. A. and Meier K. J. (eds.), Politics, Policy, and Organizations: Frontiers in the Scientific Study of Bureaucracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 104–129.Google Scholar
Vigoda, E. (2002) From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review 62: 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, C. (2002) A Formal Model of the Politics of Delegation in a Separation of Powers System. American Journal of Political Science 46: 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walmsley, G. L., Goodsell, C. T., Rohr, J. A., Stivers, C. M., White, O. F.Wolf, J. F. (1987) The Public Administration and Governance Process: Refocusing the American Dialogue. In Chandler R. C. (ed.), A Centenniel History of the American Administrative State. New York: Free Press, 291–317.Google Scholar
White, L. D. (1948) The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. D.Waterman, R. W. (1994) Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of a Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Wood, G. S. (1969) The Creation of the American Republic. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar