European Journal of Political Research

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 291–307 | Cite as

Representation or abdication? How citizens use institutions to help delegation succeed

  • Arthur Lupia
  • Mathew D. Mccubbins
Article

Abstract

Modern democracy requires delegation. Oneproblem with delegation is that principals andagents often have conflicting interests. A secondproblem is that principals lack informationabout their agents. Many scholars conclude that theseproblems cause delegation to become abdication. Wereject this conclusion and introduce a theory ofdelegation that supports a different conclusion. Thetheory clarifies when interest conflicts andinformation problems do (and do not) turn delegationinto abdication. We conclude by arguing that remediesfor common delegation problems can be embedded in thedesign of electoral, legislative, and bureaucraticinstitutions. The culmination of our efforts is asimple, but general, statement about when citizens andlegislators can (and cannot) control their agents.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aberbach, J.D. (1990). Keeping a watchful eye: The politics of Congressional oversight. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  2. Alchian, A. & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization, American Economic Review 62: 777–95.Google Scholar
  3. Brehm, J. & Gates, S. (1997). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dahl, R.A. (1967). Pluralist democracy in the United States: conflict and consent. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  5. Delli Carpini, M.X. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fiorina, M.P. (1977). Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gerth, H.H. & Mills, C.W. (eds.) (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Heclo, H. & Madsen, H. (1987). Policy and politics in Sweden: principled pragmatism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Jensen, M.C. & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–60.Google Scholar
  10. Kiewiet, D.R. & McCubbins, M.D. (1991). The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Laffont, J.-J. & Tirole, J. (1993). A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lowi, T.J. (1979). The end of Liberalism: The second republic of the United States. 2nd edn. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  13. Lupia, A. (2000). The EU, the EEA, and domestic accountability: How outside forces affect delegation within member states, Journal of Legislative Studies 6: forthcoming.Google Scholar
  14. Lupia, A. & McCubbins, M.D. (1994). Learning from oversight: Fire alarms and police patrols reconstructed, Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 10: 96–125.Google Scholar
  15. Lupia, A. & McCubbins, M.D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mayhew, D.R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. McCubbins, M.D. & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms, American Journal of Political Science 28: 165–79.Google Scholar
  18. McCubbins, M.D., Noll, R.G. & Weingast, B.R. (1987). Administrative procedures as an instrument of political control, Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 3: 243–77.Google Scholar
  19. McNollgast (1989). Structure and process, politics and policy: administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies, Virginia Law Review 75: 431–82.Google Scholar
  20. Michels, R. (1915). Political Parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Niskanen, W.A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  22. Ogul, M.S. & Rockman, B.A. (1990). Overseeing oversight: New departures and old problems, Legislative Studies Quarterly 15: 5–24.Google Scholar
  23. Shepsle, K.A. & Weingast, B.R. (eds.) (1995). Positive theories of congressional institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  24. Spence, A.M. (1974). Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Spiller, P.T. (1996). A positive political theory of regulatory instruments: Contracts, administrative law or regulatory specificity, Southern California Law Review 69: 477–514.Google Scholar
  26. Strøm, K. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies, European Journal of Political Research 37: 261–289.Google Scholar
  27. Weber, M. (1946). Economy and society. In H.H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Weingast, B.R. (1984). The Congressional bureaucratic system: A principal - agent perspective, Public Choice 44: 147–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur Lupia
    • 1
  • Mathew D. Mccubbins
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations