IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v104y2023i4p702-715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do bureaucratic appointees change their minds? Preference stability at the NLRB

Author

Listed:
  • David C. Nixon

Abstract

Objectives Questions of attitude stability for appointed decisionmakers are vital to our understanding of democracy. I test the assumption of bureaucratic preference stability that is widespread in formal and empirical analyses of the U.S. executive branch. Methods The study presents a qualitative analysis of quantitative voting data for members of the National Labor Relations Board from 1948 to 1988 Results Analysis reveals a few clear cases of permanent and important preference change and some evidence of change at the very beginning or very end of a few board members' careers. But overall there is remarkable stability in the relative levels of support for labor exhibited by board members as their careers unfold. Conclusions With some notable exceptions, an independent regulatory board member's revealed preferences tend to remain stable and consistent with the expectations that any observer would have had at the time of their initial appointment.

Suggested Citation

  • David C. Nixon, 2023. "Do bureaucratic appointees change their minds? Preference stability at the NLRB," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(4), pages 702-715, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:4:p:702-715
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13294
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13294?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:104:y:2023:i:4:p:702-715. 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.