IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i1p144-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Service or Propaganda? How Americans Evaluate Political Advocacy by Executive Agencies

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Henderson
  • John Maxwell Hamilton

Abstract

Objective Executive agencies of the federal government frequently engage in explicit political advocacy, exhorting the public to adopt policy positions and engage in political actions. This advocacy conflicts with legal restrictions on unelected bureaucrats. It is unclear what the public thinks of this kind of advocacy. We assess whether Americans judge this advocacy based on principles about acceptable political processes or based on policy goals. Methods We use observational and experimental data from two national surveys of American adults to assess the role of policy preferences in acceptance of political advocacy by executive agencies. Findings We find that Americans approve a broad range of public communications from executive agencies, but approval of political appeals is highly sensitive to whether an individual shares the policy goal of the agency. Conclusions Policy agreement, rather than preferences about process, drives Americans' attitudes toward this kind of advocacy. Americans support political advocacy by executive agencies when it dovetails with their own policy preferences or partisanship and oppose it when these agencies advocate for policies that contradict their own preferences or partisanship. Indeed, they do not draw any distinction between unelected bureaucrats and elected politicians when it comes to evaluating these forms of advocacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Henderson & John Maxwell Hamilton, 2020. "Public Service or Propaganda? How Americans Evaluate Political Advocacy by Executive Agencies," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(1), pages 144-160, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:1:p:144-160
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12736
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12736?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:1:p:144-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.