IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v109y2015i03p507-522_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence and the Administrative Process: Lobbying the U.S. President's Office of Management and Budget

Author

Listed:
  • HAEDER, SIMON F.
  • YACKEE, SUSAN WEBB

Abstract

All administrative processes contain points of entry for politics, and the U.S. president's use of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review government regulations is no exception. Specifically, OMB review can open up a pathway for interest groups to lobby for policy change. We theorize that interest group lobbying can be influential during OMB review, especially when there is consensus across groups. We use a selection model to test our argument with more than 1,500 regulations written by federal agencies that were subjected to OMB review. We find that lobbying is associated with change during OMB review. We also demonstrate that, when only business groups lobby, we are more likely to see rule change; however, the same is not true for public interest groups. We supplement these results with illustrative examples suggesting that interest groups can, at times, use OMB review to influence the content of legally binding government regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Haeder, Simon F. & Yackee, Susan Webb, 2015. "Influence and the Administrative Process: Lobbying the U.S. President's Office of Management and Budget," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(3), pages 507-522, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:109:y:2015:i:03:p:507-522_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055415000246/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Egerod, Benjamin C. K., 2019. "The Revolving Door and Regulatory Enforcement: Firm-Level Evidence on Tax Rates and IRS Audits," Working Papers 289, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    2. Brett Aho, 2017. "Disrupting regulation: understanding industry engagement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 698-706.
    3. Tobias Heinrich & Timothy M. Peterson, 2020. "Foreign Policy as Pork-barrel Spending: Incentives for Legislator Credit Claiming on Foreign Aid," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(7-8), pages 1418-1442, August.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:109:y:2015:i:03:p:507-522_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.