IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v56y2012i1p98-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Complications of Controlling Agency Time Discretion: FDA Review Deadlines and Postmarket Drug Safety

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Carpenter
  • Jacqueline Chattopadhyay
  • Susan Moffitt
  • Clayton Nall

Abstract

Public agencies have discretion on the time domain, and politicians deploy numerous policy instruments to constrain it. Yet little is known about how administrative procedures that affect timing also affect the quality of agency decisions. We examine whether administrative deadlines shape decision timing and the observed quality of decisions. Using a unique and rich dataset of FDA drug approvals that allows us to examine decision timing and quality, we find that this administrative tool induces a piling of decisions before deadlines, and that these “just‐before‐deadline” approvals are linked with higher rates of postmarket safety problems (market withdrawals, severe safety warnings, safety alerts). Examination of data from FDA advisory committees suggests that the deadlines may impede quality by impairing late‐stage deliberation and agency risk communication. Our results both support and challenge reigning theories about administrative procedures, suggesting they embody expected control‐expertise trade‐offs, but may also create unanticipated constituency losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Carpenter & Jacqueline Chattopadhyay & Susan Moffitt & Clayton Nall, 2012. "The Complications of Controlling Agency Time Discretion: FDA Review Deadlines and Postmarket Drug Safety," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 98-114, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:56:y:2012:i:1:p:98-114
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00544.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00544.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00544.x?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Natarajan Balasubramanian & Jeongsik Lee & Jagadeesh Sivadasan, 2018. "Deadlines, Workflows, Task Sorting, and Work Quality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1804-1824, April.
    2. Anna Chorniy & James Bailey & Abdulkadir Civan & Michael Maloney, 2021. "Regulatory review time and pharmaceutical research and development," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 113-128, January.
    3. Luis Diestre & Benjamin Barber & Juan Santaló, 2020. "The Friday Effect: Firm Lobbying, the Timing of Drug Safety Alerts, and Drug Side Effects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3677-3698, August.
    4. Jan Boon & Heidi H. Salomonsen & Koen Verhoest, 2021. "A reputation for what, to whom, and in which task environment: A commentary," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 428-441, April.
    5. Cesare A.F. Riillo & Kai Jakobs, 2023. "Too many or too few Standards Setters? Evidence from the Performance of Firms engaged in Standardization," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2106-2131, December.
    6. Boakye, Derrick & Sarpong, David & Mordi, Chima, 2022. "Regulatory review of new product innovation: Conceptual clarity and future research directions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).

    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:wly:amposc:v:56:y:2012:i:1:p:98-114. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.