Bureaucratic Autonomy in the U.S. Separation of Powers: Evidence from Cabinet Departments
- 361 Downloads
Theories of delegation posit that politicians have the incentive to decrease discretion when ideological conflict with an administrative agency increases. Yet agencies can use their expertise to appropriate informational benefits from delegation helping to increase bureaucratic autonomy. Such theories only indirectly address the impact of ideological conflict on bureaucrats’ perceptions about the extent of the discretion they are afforded on the job. Does the perception of discretion by bureaucrats depend on ideological conflicts between the legislative and executive branches? Statistical results from dynamic panel models provide evidence that that closer ideological alignment with the U.S. Congress than the president increases perceived discretion; that a negative relationship emerges between confirmation times and perceived discretion, but a small and opposite relationship exists among supervisory levels; that variance in the ideological portfolio of cabinet secretaries decreases perceived discretion overall, but has no effect on supervisory cadres; and that divergence between the goals and legal context of an agency and the president’s policy orientation are associated with lower perceived discretion.
KeywordsBureaucratic discretion Delegation
I thank George Krause, Nolan McCarty, David Lewis, Peter Robertson and seminar participants at Princeton University for helpful comments. The Bedrosian Center on Governance and the Public Enterprise at the University of Southern California provided financial support for this project.
- Bertelli, A. M., Mason, D. P., Connolly, J. M., & Gastwirth, D. A. (forthcoming). Measuring Agency Attributes with Attitudes Across Time: A Method and Examples Using Large-Scale Federal Surveys. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2265678
- Bonica, A., Chen, J., and Johnson, T. (2012). Automated methods for estimating the political ideology of individual public bureaucrats across time and in a common ideological space. Unpublished Manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
- Brehm, J., & Gates, S. (1997). Working, shirking, and sabotage. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Chen, J., & Johnson, T. (forthcoming). Federal Unionization and Presidential Control of the Bureaucracy. Journal of Theoretical Politics. Retrieved from http://jtp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/25/0951629813518126.abstract.
- Clinton, J. D., & Lewis, D. E. (2008). Expert opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Political Analysis, 15, 3–20.Google Scholar
- Howell, W. G. (2003). Power without persuasion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Huber, J. D., Shipan, C. R., & Pfahler, M. (2001). Legislatures and statutory control of bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 330–345.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. E. (2003). Presidents and the politics of agency design: Political insulation in the United States government bureaucracy, 1946–1997. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. E. (2008). The politics of presidential appointments: Political control and bureaucratic performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Teodoro, M. P. (2011). Bureaucratic ambition: Careers, motives, and the innovative administrator. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar