IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v25y2006i1p53-74.html

Does agency competition improve the quality of policy analysis? Evidence from OMB and CBO fiscal projections

Author

Listed:
  • George A. Krause

    (University of Pittsburgh)

  • James W. Douglas

    (University of South Carolina)

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 1975 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 OMB's performance. Our empirical results indicate that the quality of OMB's 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. © 2006 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

Suggested Citation

  • George A. Krause & James W. Douglas, 2006. "Does agency competition improve the quality of policy analysis? Evidence from OMB and CBO fiscal projections," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(1), pages 53-74.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:25:y:2006:i:1:p:53-74
    DOI: 10.1002/pam.20156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/pam.20156
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pam.20156?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. Michael M. Ting, 2003. "A Strategic Theory of Bureaucratic Redundancy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(2), pages 274-292, April.
    2. Krishna, Vijay, 2001. "Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules: Some Amendments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(2), pages 435-452, June.
    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. Aidan R. Vining, 2016. "What Is Public Agency Strategic Analysis (PASA) and How Does It Differ from Public Policy Analysis and Firm Strategy Analysis?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-31, December.
    2. Tereza Capelos & Colin Provost & Maria Parouti & Julie Barnett & Jonathan Chenoweth & Chris Fife‐Schaw & Tanika Kelay, 2016. "Ingredients of institutional reputations and citizen engagement with regulators," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 350-367, December.
    3. George A. Krause, 2006. "Beyond the Norm," Rationality and Society, , vol. 18(2), pages 157-191, May.
    4. H. Christiaan Schakel & Patrick Jeurissen & Sherry Glied, 2017. "The influence of fiscal rules on healthcare policy in the United States and the Netherlands," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 595-607, October.

    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. Murali Agastya & Parimal Kanti Bag & Indranil Chakraborty, 2015. "Proximate preferences and almost full revelation in the Crawford–Sobel game," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 201-212, October.
    2. Meirowitz, Adam, 2005. "Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Papers 03-28-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    3. Chan, Jimmy & Suen, Wing, 2009. "Media as watchdogs: The role of news media in electoral competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(7), pages 799-814, October.
    4. Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman, 2006. "Implementing a 'bottom-up,' multi-sector research collaboration: The case of the Texas air quality study," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 51-69.
    5. Bénabou, Roland & Battaglini, Marco, 2002. "Political Activism, Trust, and Coordination," CEPR Discussion Papers 3611, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Hong Min Park, 2012. "Why does the majority party bother to have minority party members on committees?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(2), pages 248-264, April.
    7. Lai, Ernest K., 2014. "Expert advice for amateurs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-16.
    8. Kimiko Terai & Amihai Glazer, 2018. "Rivalry among agents seeking large budgets," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(4), pages 388-409, October.
    9. George Tridimas, 2011. "A political economy perspective of direct democracy in ancient Athens," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 58-82, March.
    10. Battaglini, Marco & Makarov, Uliana, 2014. "Cheap talk with multiple audiences: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 147-164.
    11. Andrea Patacconi, 2009. "Coordination and delay in hierarchies," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(1), pages 190-208, March.
    12. Sobel, Joel, 2013. "Ten possible experiments on communication and deception," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt53w1f0w4, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    13. Tao Li, 2014. "Expert advising under checks and balances," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(2), pages 477-502, February.
    14. Gerardi, Dino & McLean, Richard & Postlewaite, Andrew, 2009. "Aggregation of expert opinions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 339-371, March.
    15. Moreno de Barreda, Inés, 2024. "Cheap talk with two-sided private information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 97-118.
    16. George Tridimas, 2010. "Constitutional judicial review and political insurance," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 81-101, February.
    17. Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan & Landa, Dimitri, 2015. "Political accountability and sequential policymaking," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 95-108.
    18. Ambrus, Attila & Lu, Shih En, 2014. "Almost fully revealing cheap talk with imperfectly informed senders," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 174-189.
    19. Ricardo Alonso & Niko Matouschek, 2008. "Optimal Delegation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(1), pages 259-293.
    20. Dimitri Landa & Adam Meirowitz, 2009. "Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 427-444, April.

    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:jpamgt:v:25:y:2006:i:1:p:53-74. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.