IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/4w9af.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Institutional Foundations of the Power to Persuade

Author

Listed:
  • Prato, Carlo
  • Turner, Ian R

    (Yale University)

Abstract

We study how legislative oversight shapes intra-executive politics. We develop a theory in which the president can shape information available to lower-level bureaucrats via both overt, legitimate actions (e.g., through appointments or policy directives) but also via covert, illegitimate interventions (i.e., interference, which can be uncovered by oversight). We show that the president's ability to persuade bureaucrats to act in line with her policy goals requires (i) some degree of bureaucratic insulation and (ii) sufficiently aggressive legislative oversight. Both factors contribute to the overall credibility of presidential directives. When legislative oversight is not sufficiently aggressive (e.g., under unified government), the president might actually lack the necessary credibility influence the bureaucrat and her best course of action is to provide unbiased information.

Suggested Citation

  • Prato, Carlo & Turner, Ian R, 2022. "Institutional Foundations of the Power to Persuade," SocArXiv 4w9af, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:4w9af
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/4w9af
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/62885a8e47df8564b36efd19/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/4w9af?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. HUBER, JOHN D. & McCARTY, NOLAN, 2004. "Bureaucratic Capacity, Delegation, and Political Reform," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(3), pages 481-494, August.
    2. Nguyen, Anh & Tan, Teck Yong, 2021. "Bayesian persuasion with costly messages," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Jennifer L. Selin, 2015. "What Makes an Agency Independent?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(4), pages 971-987, October.
    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. Gerardi, Dino & Grillo, Edoardo & Monzón, Ignacio, 2022. "The perils of friendly oversight," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    2. Andrea Gallice & Edoardo Grillo, 2022. "Legitimize through Endorsement," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 680 JEL Classification: C, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    3. Little, Andrew T., 2022. "Bayesian Explanations for Persuasion," OSF Preprints ygw8e, Center for Open Science.
    4. Andrew T Little, 2023. "Bayesian explanations for persuasion," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 35(3), pages 147-181, July.

    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. Andina-Díaz, Ascensión & Feri, Francesco & Meléndez-Jiménez, Miguel A., 2021. "Institutional flexibility, political alternation, and middle-of-the-road policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    2. Michael K Miller, 2011. "Seizing the mantle of change: Modeling candidate quality as effectiveness instead of valence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 52-68, January.
    3. Cassandra Moseley & Susan Charnley, 2014. "Understanding micro-processes of institutionalization: stewardship contracting and national forest management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(1), pages 69-98, March.
    4. Navin Kartik & Andreas Kleiner & Richard Van Weelden, 2021. "Delegation in Veto Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(12), pages 4046-4087, December.
    5. Vincent Anesi & Daniel J. Seidmann, 2009. "Optimal Delegation with a Finite Number of States," Discussion Papers 2009-20, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    6. Johannes Binswanger & Manuel Oechslin, 2015. "Disagreement and Learning about Reforms," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(584), pages 853-886, May.
    7. Kun Zhang, 2022. "Withholding Verifiable Information," Papers 2206.09918, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    8. Ian R Turner, 2017. "Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 69-96, January.
    9. Yehuda Porath & Tal Sadeh, 2022. "National Debt Management Autonomy and National Debt Maturity at Issue," Bank of Israel Working Papers 2022.14, Bank of Israel.
    10. Mihály Fazekas & Romain Ferrali & Johannes Wachs, 2023. "Agency Independence, Campaign Contributions, and Favoritism in US Federal Government Contracting," Post-Print hal-03994320, HAL.
    11. Monte, Daniel & Linhares, Luis Henrique, 2023. "Stealth Startups, Clauses, and Add-ons: A Model of Strategic Obfuscation," MPRA Paper 115926, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Tan, Teck Yong, 2023. "Optimal transparency of monitoring capability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    13. Jinhee Jo & Lawrence S. Rothenberg, 2012. "Rational incompetence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 3-18, January.
    14. Donato Masciandaro & Davide Romelli, 2018. "Beyond the Central Bank Independence Veil: New Evidence," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 1871, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    15. Dorothy M. Daley & Megan Mullin & Meghan E. Rubado, 2014. "State Agency Discretion in a Delegated Federal Program: Evidence from Drinking Water Investment," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 564-586.
    16. Tsakas, Elias & Tsakas, Nikolas, 2021. "Noisy persuasion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 44-61.
    17. Daehong Min, 2021. "Bayesian persuasion under partial commitment," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(3), pages 743-764, October.
    18. Pei, Harry, 2023. "Repeated communication with private lying costs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    19. Duvanova, Dinissa, 2014. "Economic Regulations, Red Tape, and Bureaucratic Corruption in Post-Communist Economies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 298-312.
    20. Turner, Ian R, 2021. "Reviewing Procedure vs. Judging Substance: How Increasing Bureaucratic Oversight Can Reduce Bureaucratic Accountability," SocArXiv v6kzw, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:4w9af. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.