IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v18y2006i2p159-183.html

Structural Reform Litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony M. Bertelli

    (Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs, University of Georgia, bertelli@uga.edu)

  • Sven E. Feldmann

    (Department of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Centre for Economic and Business Research, Copenhagen)

Abstract

Initiated by interest groups representing the interest of a class of agency clients, structural reform litigation shapes the administration of important policy domains, particularly in the social services. Employing a spatial bargaining model we show that, instead of holding the agency to its mandate, structural reform litigation constitutes an institutional tool that creates bureaucratic drift even if courts are policy neutral. Since courts permit negotiation between agency and interest group plaintiff in designing remedies, it is very difficult for a legislature to enforce statutory constraints via judicial oversight and to stem this form of policy drift.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony M. Bertelli & Sven E. Feldmann, 2006. "Structural Reform Litigation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 159-183, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:18:y:2006:i:2:p:159-183
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629806061859
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629806061859
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629806061859?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    3. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    4. Rubinstein, Ariel & Safra, Zvi & Thomson, William, 1992. "On the Interpretation of the Nash Bargaining Solution and Its Extension to Non-expected Utility Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1171-1186, September.
    5. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    6. Bendor, Jonathan, 1988. "Formal Models of Bureaucracy," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 353-395, July.
    7. Niskanen, William A, 1975. "Bureaucrats and Politicians," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 617-643, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yehuda ELIYA & Nicolae BIBU, 2019. "The Relation between Accountability and the Climate of Service in Israeli Public organisations," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(1), pages 30-51, March.
    2. Peter Grajzl, 2011. "A property rights approach to legislative delegation," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 177-200, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anbarci, Nejat & Sun, Ching-jen, 2013. "Asymmetric Nash bargaining solutions: A simple Nash program," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 211-214.
    2. António Brandão & Joana Pinho & Hélder Vasconcelos, 2014. "Asymmetric Collusion with Growing Demand," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 429-472, December.
    3. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    4. Naercio Menezes-Filho & Helio Zylberstajn & Jose Paulo Chahad & Elaine Pazello, 2002. "Unions and the Economic Performanceof Brazilian Establishments," Research Department Publications 3157, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    5. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    6. Eran Hanany & D. Marc Kilgour & Yigal Gerchak, 2007. "Final-Offer Arbitration and Risk Aversion in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1785-1792, November.
    7. Okada, Akira, 2010. "The Nash bargaining solution in general n-person cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2356-2379, November.
    8. Haruo Imai & Hannu Salonen, 2012. "A characterization of a limit solution for finite horizon bargaining problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(3), pages 603-622, August.
    9. Hanato, Shunsuke, 2019. "Simultaneous-offers bargaining with a mediator," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 361-379.
    10. Kultti, Klaus & Vartiainen, Hannu, 2007. "Von Neumann-Morgenstern stable sets, discounting, and Nash bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 721-728, November.
    11. Emilio Calvo & Esther Gutiérrez-López, 2016. "A strategic approach for the discounted Shapley values," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 271-293, February.
    12. Elges, Carsten, 2016. "Die Preissetzung in Unternehmenskooperationen: Erste spieltheoretische Überlegungen," Arbeitspapiere 162, University of Münster, Institute for Cooperatives.
    13. Trockel, Walter, 2017. "Can and should the Nash Program be looked at as a part of mechanism theory," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 322, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    14. John M. Crespi & Jennifer S. James, 2007. "Bargaining rationale for cooperative generic advertising," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(4), pages 445-457, December.
    15. Johannes Spinnewijn & Frans Spinnewyn, 2015. "Revising claims and resisting ultimatums in bargaining problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(2), pages 91-116, June.
    16. Walter Trockel, 2002. "Integrating the Nash program into mechanism theory," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 7(1), pages 27-43.
    17. Binmore, Ken & Samuelson, Larry & Young, Peyton, 2003. "Equilibrium selection in bargaining models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 296-328, November.
    18. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2002. "Endogenous bargaining power," Economics Working Papers 644, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    19. Björn Brügemann & Pieter Gautier & Guido Menzio, 2019. "Intra Firm Bargaining and Shapley Values," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(2), pages 564-592.
    20. Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto, 1998. "Invariance and randomness in the Nash program for coalitional games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 43-49, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:jothpo:v:18:y:2006:i:2:p:159-183. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.