IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sef/csefwp/380.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lobbying (Strategically Appointed) Bureaucrats

Author

Abstract

When are strategic appointments useful in curbing policy bias from ex-post negotiation between state agencies and special interest groups? Bertelli and Feldmann (Jnl. of Public Admin. Research and Theory, 2007) provide an insightful analysis of the issue within a full information model of presidential appointments. This paper examines whether and how their findings extend to a world of policy uncertainty and asymmetric information, which rationalizes delegation in the first place. We establish that the existence of non-zero impact of lobbying crucially relies on interest groups' leverage over the appointment game between higher-level institutions. Remarkably, bureaucratic lobbying may prove highly non-neutral with separated powers even when a candidate agency is agreed upon. In some circumstances (e.g., recess appointments in the U.S.), by contrast, strategic appointments fully offset interest group influence in either form of government (unified versus divided), a finding in line with the conventional theory of delegation.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco M. Sorge, 2014. "Lobbying (Strategically Appointed) Bureaucrats," CSEF Working Papers 380, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:sef:csefwp:380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.csef.it/WP/wp380.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hammond, Thomas H & Knott, Jack H, 1996. "Who Controls the Bureaucracy?: Presidential Power, Congressional Dominance, Legal Constraints, and Bureaucratic Autonomy in a Model of Multi-institutional Policy-Making," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 119-166, April.
    2. Gailmard, Sean, 2009. "Discretion Rather than Rules: Choice of Instruments to Control Bureaucratic Policy Making," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 25-44, January.
    3. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    4. Giuseppe Albanese & Marco M. Sorge, 2012. "The Role of the Judiciary in the Public Decision‐Making Process," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Alberto Alesina & Guido Tabellini, 2007. "Bureaucrats or Politicians? Part I: A Single Policy Task," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 169-179, March.
    6. Epstein, Gil S. & Nitzan, Shmuel, 2004. "Strategic restraint in contests," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 201-210, February.
    7. John M. de Figueiredo & Rui J.P. de Figueiredo, 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," NBER Working Papers 8981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Boylan, R.T., 1997. "Private Bills: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Lobbying," Washington University 97-04, Business, Law and Economics Center, John M. Olin School of Business, Washington University.
    9. Boylan, Richard T, 2002. "Private Bills: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Lobbying," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 111(1-2), pages 19-47, March.
    10. Tirole, Jean, 1994. "The Internal Organization of Government," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-29, January.
    11. Gil S. Epstein & Shmuel Nitzan, 2007. "Endogenous Public Policy and Contests," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-74818-2, December.
    12. Morten Bennedsen & Sven E. Feldmann, 2002. "Lobbying Legislatures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(4), pages 919-948, August.
    13. Hoyt, William H. & Toma, Eugenia Froedge, 1989. "State mandates and interest group lobbying," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 199-213, March.
    14. Chang, Kelly H, 2001. "The President versus the State: Appointments in the American System of Separated Powers and the Federal Reserve," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 319-355, October.
    15. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    16. Barry Weingast, 1984. "The congressional-bureaucratic system: a principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 147-191, January.
    17. Rauch, James E. & Evans, Peter B., 2000. "Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 49-71, January.
    18. Gil S. Epstein & Shmuel Nitzan, 2002. "Endogenous Public Policy, Politicization and Welfare," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 4(4), pages 661-677, October.
    19. Roger B. Myerson & Daniel Diermeier, 1999. "Bicameralism and Its Consequences for the Internal Organization of Legislatures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1182-1196, December.
    20. Morten Bennedsen & Sven E. Feldmann, 2006. "Lobbying Bureaucrats," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 108(4), pages 643-668, December.
    21. Spiller, Pablo T, 1990. "Politicians, Interest Groups, and Regulators: A Multiple-Principals Agency Theory of Regulation, or "Let Them Be Bribed."," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 65-101, April.
    22. 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.
    23. Mazza, Isidoro & van Winden, Frans, 2008. "An endogenous policy model of hierarchical government," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 133-149, January.
    24. De Figueiredo, John M. & De Figueiredo, Rui J. P. Jr., 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," Working papers 4247-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    25. Megumi Naoi & Ellis Krauss, 2009. "Who Lobbies Whom? Special Interest Politics under Alternative Electoral Systems," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 874-892, October.
    26. de Figueiredo, John M. & de Figueiredo, Rui J.P., 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 161-181, August.
    27. Peter Grajzl, 2011. "A property rights approach to legislative delegation," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 177-200, June.
    28. Brousseau,Éric & Glachant,Jean-Michel (ed.), 2008. "New Institutional Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521876605, December.
    29. Brousseau,Éric & Glachant,Jean-Michel (ed.), 2008. "New Institutional Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700160, December.
    30. Randolph Sloof, 2000. "Interest Group Lobbying and the Delegation of Policy Authority," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 247-274, November.
    31. David A. Malueg & Andrew J. Yates, 2004. "Sent Seeking With Private Values," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 161-178, April.
    32. Frederick J. Boehmke & Sean Gailmard & John W. Patty, 2005. "Whose Ear (or Arm) to Bend? Information Sources and Venue Choice in Policy Making," Public Economics 0502009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    33. Figueiredo John M. de & J. P. de Figueiredo Jr Rui, 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-22, August.
    34. Nitzan, Shmuel, 1994. "Modelling rent-seeking contests," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 41-60, May.
    35. Gil S. Epstein & Shmuel Nitzan, 2005. "Lobbying and Compromise," CESifo Working Paper Series 1413, CESifo.
    36. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 2, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    37. Sean Gailmard, 2002. "Expertise, Subversion, and Bureaucratic Discretion," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 536-555, October.
    38. Weingast, Barry R & Moran, Mark J, 1983. "Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(5), pages 765-800, October.
    39. Nolan McCarty, 2004. "The Appointments Dilemma," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(3), pages 413-428, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mazza, Isidoro & van Winden, Frans, 2008. "An endogenous policy model of hierarchical government," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 133-149, January.
    2. Peter Grajzl, 2011. "A property rights approach to legislative delegation," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 177-200, June.
    3. Brousseau, Eric & Garrouste, Pierre & Raynaud, Emmanuel, 2011. "Institutional changes: Alternative theories and consequences for institutional design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(1-2), pages 3-19, June.
    4. Pablo T. Spiller & Sanny Liao, 2006. "Buy, Lobby or Sue: Interest Groups' Participation in Policy Making - A Selective Survey," NBER Working Papers 12209, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. John M. de Figueiredo, 2009. "Integrated Political Strategy," NBER Working Papers 15053, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Leyla D. Karakas, 2018. "Appeasement and compromise under a referendum threat," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 261-283, August.
    7. Le Breton, Michel & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2007. "Legislative Lobbying under Political Uncertainty," IDEI Working Papers 493, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    8. Moser, Peter, 1999. "The impact of legislative institutions on public policy: a survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-33, March.
    9. John M. de Figueiredo & Edward H. Stiglitz, 2015. "Democratic Rulemaking," NBER Working Papers 21765, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Andrew B. Whitford, 2008. "A Test of the Political Control of Bureaucracies Under Asymmetric Information," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(4), pages 445-470, November.
    11. Yoshiharu Oritani, 2010. "Public governance of central banks: an approach from new institutional economics," BIS Working Papers 299, Bank for International Settlements.
    12. Virginia Rosales-López, 2008. "Economics of court performance: an empirical analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 231-251, June.
    13. Deepak Somaya & Christine A. McDaniel, 2012. "Tribunal Specialization and Institutional Targeting in Patent Enforcement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 869-887, June.
    14. Epstein, Gil S. & Gang, Ira N., 2019. "Taxation and social protection under governance decentralisation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Gil S. Epstein & Ira N. Gang, 2016. "Taxation, social protection, and governance decentralization," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-101, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    16. Naseer, Shaheen & Heine, Klaus, 2017. "Bureaucratic Identity and the Shape of Public Policy: A Game Theoretic Analysis," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168144, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. 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.
    18. Konrad, Kai A., 2007. "Strategy in contests: an introduction [Strategie in Turnieren – eine Einführung]," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Processes and Governance SP II 2007-01, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    19. Deepak Hegde & Bhaven Sampat, 2015. "Can Private Money Buy Public Science? Disease Group Lobbying and Federal Funding for Biomedical Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2281-2298, October.
    20. Woon Leong Lin, 2019. "Is Corporate Political Activity an Investment or Agency? An Application of System GMM Approach," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Legislative delegation; Strategic appointments; Bureaucratic lobbying;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government

    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:sef:csefwp:380. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cssalit.html .

    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: Dr. Maria Carannante (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cssalit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.