IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nos/vgmu00/2009i1p60-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Agency Competition Improve the Quality of Policy Analysis? Evidence from OMB and CBO Fiscal Projections

Author

Listed:
  • George Krause
  • James Douglas

Abstract

Public management scholars often claim that agency competition provides an effective institutional check on monopoly authority, and hence, leads to improvement of administrative performance in public sector agencies. This logic was central for creating the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in 975 to challenge the policy information provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We challenge this conventional wisdom by demonstrating that CBO has failed to enhance the quality of U.S. fiscal policy analysis on its own terms; nor has it spurred improvements in OMBs performance. Our empirical results indicate that the quality of OMBs fiscal projections has often deteriorated since the establishment of CBO as a rival bureau. We also show that both public and private information is being shared by these agencies to produce a similar caliber of task outputs. The broader implications of our study indicate that although politicians face incentives to employ agency competition in governmental settings, this type of bureaucratic strategy does not necessarily enhance the quality of administrative performance.

Suggested Citation

  • George Krause & James Douglas, 2009. "Does Agency Competition Improve the Quality of Policy Analysis? Evidence from OMB and CBO Fiscal Projections," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 60-84.
  • Handle: RePEc:nos:vgmu00:2009:i:1:p:60-84
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vgmu.hse.ru/data/2010/12/31/1208180760/60-84_Krauz.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    competition;

    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:nos:vgmu00:2009:i:1:p:60-84. 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: Irina A. Zvereva (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://vgmu.hse.ru/ .

    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.