Delegation of Political Authority to Bureaucratic Agencies in an Authoritarian Regime: An Analysis of Regional Economic Regulation in Kazakhstan

Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper investigates the delegation of economic policy implementation in non-democratic settings. It draws on a dataset of statutory and administrative regulation created between 1991 and 2011 in Kazakhstan in order to investigate economic effects of bureaucratic discretion. The examination of regional and temporal variation in the number and detail of economic regulations shows that while regulatory intervention does not have a discernible effect on economic performance, statutory constraints on bureaucratic discretion have a positive effect. This finding supports the notion that in the absence of societal accountability, statutory constraint on the administrative apparatus leads to a more stable business climate and better economic performance. The paper explicates the ways in which theories of delegation apply to autocracies and broadens our understanding of political control over economic policy implementation.

Keywords

Economic regulations Bureaucratic discretion Business climate Statutory controls Authoritarian regimes Kazakhstan 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D, Verdier TA. The choice between market failures and corruption. Am Econ Rev 2000;90:194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beazer, QH. Bureaucratic discretion, business investment, and uncertainty. J Polit 2012;74(3):637–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendor, J, Glazer A, Hammond TH. Theories of delegation. Annual Review of Political Science 2001;4:235–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bendor, J, Meirowitz A. Spatial models of delegation. Am Polit Sci Rev 2004; 98:293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertelli, AM, Whitford AB. Perceiving credible commitments: how independent regulators shape elite perceptions of regulatory quality. Br J Polit Sci 2009;39:517–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhuiyan, SH. Decentralization and local governance in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Public Administration 2010;33(12-13):658–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhuiyan, SH, Amagoh F. Public sector reform in Kazakhstan: issues and perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management 2011;24(3):227–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolaky, B, Freund C. Trade, regulations, and income. J Dev Econ 2008;87 (2):309–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Business and Anti-Corruption. 2012. Snapshot of the Kazakhstan country profile.Google Scholar
  10. Clague, C, Keefer P, Knack S, Olson M. Property and contract rights in autocracies and democracies. J Econ Growth 1996;1(2):243–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dellepiane-Avellaneda, S. Review article: good governance, institutions and economic development: beyond the conventional wisdom. Br J Polit Sci 2010;40:195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dery, D. Fuzzy control. J Public Adm Res Theory 2002;12(2).Google Scholar
  13. Djankov, S, La Porta R, Lopez-De-Silanes F, Shleifer A. The regulation of entry. Q J Econ 2002;117(1):1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duvanova, D. Bureaucratic discretion and the regulatory burden: business environments under alternative regulatory regimes. Br J Polit Sci 2012;42:481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Egorov, G, Guriev S, Sonin K. Why resource-poor dictators allow freer media: a theory and evidence from panel data. Am Polit Sci Rev 2009;103:645–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emrich-Bakenova, S. Trajectory of civil service development in Kazakhstan: nexus of politics and administration. Governance 2009;22(4).Google Scholar
  17. Fiorina, M. Legislator uncertainty legislative control, and the delegation of legislative power. J Law Econ Org 1986;2(1):33–51.Google Scholar
  18. Fisman, R, Svensson J. Are corruption and taxation really harmful to growth? Firm level evidence. J Dev Econ 2007;83:63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gailmard, S, Patty JW. Slackers and zealots: civil service, policy discretion and bureaucratic expertise. Am Polit Sci Rev 2007;51(4):873–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gandhi, J, Przeworski A. Cooperation, cooptation, and rebellion under dictatorships. Econ Polit 2006;18(1):1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gehlbach, S, Keefer P. Private investment and the institutionalization of collective action in autocracies: ruling parties and legislatures. J Polit 2012;74(2):621–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gordon, SC, Hafer C. Flexing muscle: corporate political expenditures as signals to the bureaucracy. Am Polit Sci Rev 2005;99(2):245–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, PA, Gingerich DW. Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the political economy: an empirical analysis. Br J Polit Sci 2009; 39:449–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huber, JD, McCarty N. Bureaucratic capacity, delegation, and political reform. Am Polit Sci Rev 2004;98:481–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huber, JD, Shipan CR. Deliberate discretion: the institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huber, JD, Shipan CR, Pfahler M. Legislatures and statutory control of the bureaucracy. Am J Polit Sci 2001;45(2):330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klapper, LF, Laeven L, Rajan RG. Business regulations as a barrier to entrepreneurship. J Financ Econ 2004;82(3):591–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krueger, A. Political economy of rent-seeking society. Am Econ Rev 1974;64(3): 291–303.Google Scholar
  29. Li, Q. Democracy, autocracy, and tax incentives to foreign direct investors: a cross-national analysis. J Polit 2006;68:62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Makhmutova, M. Local government in Kazakhstan. In: Munteanu I and Popa V, editors. Developing new rules in the old environment: local governments in Eastern Europe, in the Caucasus and Central Asia. 2001. p. 408–68. Local Government and Public Service.Google Scholar
  31. Malesky, E, Samphantharak K. Predictable corruption and firm investment: evidence from a natural experiment and survey of Cambodian entrepreneurs. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2008;3(3):227–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCubbins, MD, Noll RG, Weingast BR. Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. J Law Econ Org 1987;3(2):243–77.Google Scholar
  33. Mikhailova, K. Chernaia igra Megapolis 2006;15(279):1.Google Scholar
  34. Randazzo, KA, Waterman RW, Fine JA. Checking the federal courts: the impact of congressional statutes on judicial behavior. J Polit 2006;68(November): 1006–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Randazzo, KA, Waterman RW, Fix MP. State supreme courts and the effects of statutory constraint: a test of the model of contingent discretion. Political Research Quarterly 2011;64(4):779–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rose-Ackerman, S. Reforming public bureaucracy through economic incentives? J Law Econ Org 1986;2(1):131–161.Google Scholar
  37. Stigler, G. The theory of economic regulation. Bell J Econ 1971;2:3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Storey, DJ. Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge; 1994.Google Scholar
  39. Weymouth, S. Political institutions and property rights: veto players and foreign exchange commitments in 127 countries. Comparative Political Studies 2011;44(2):211–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitford, AB. Decentralized policy implementation. Political Research Quarterly 2007;60(1):17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wienekea, A, Gries T. SME Performance in transition economies: the financial regulation and firm-level corruption nexus. J Comp Econ 2011;39(2):221–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wright, J. Do authoritarian institutions constrain? How legislatures affect economic growth and investment. Am J Polit Sci 2008;52(2):322–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International RelationsLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations