Portals of Democracy in American Bureaucracy

Susan L. Moffitt

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107588141.002

1 - Portals of Democracy in American Bureaucracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2014

Susan L. Moffitt

Show author details

Susan L. Moffitt: Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island

Book contents

Get access

Summary

“[K]nowledge is no longer an immobile solid; it has been liquefied; it is actively moving in all the currents of society itself.”

John Dewey

“Advisory committees can be of great value. They contribute to the “openness” of Governmental decision-making, and provide advice and information not otherwise available to the Government. Their functions range from providing policy advice on major national issues, to providing technical recommendations on particular problems.”

Federal Advisory Committees: Sixth Annual Report of the President, 1978

“Imagine planning your day around your life, instead of your osteoarthritis pain,” enticed Merck’s advertising campaign for Vioxx, its blockbuster arthritis drug. The drug Merck promoted “for everyday victories” soon became a symbol of regulatory failure as evidence emerged linking Vioxx with serious cardiovascular side effects and deaths. At the beginning of Senate hearings convened in 2004 to investigate Vioxx’s withdrawal from the market, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) alleged that the FDA had “allowed itself to be manipulated by Merck” and, more broadly, that “the FDA has a relationship with drug companies that is far too cozy.” The remedy for coziness with industry and for regulatory failure, Senator Grassley continued, would include “changes inside the FDA that [would] result in greater transparency and greater openness.” In its 2007 review of American drug safety, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) similarly claimed, “the FDA’s reputation has been hurt by a perceived lack of transparency and accountability to the public.” As part of its package of proposals to improve the agency’s impaired reputation, the Institute of Medicine called on the FDA to make greater use of its public advisory committees – groups of nongovernmental medical practitioners, researchers, and stakeholder representatives that the FDA consults on matters such as drug approval and labeling – to supplement agency expertise and to enhance transparency in the drug approval process. These proposals suggested public engagement could render FDA decisions both more accountable and less prone to regulatory failure.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Making Policy Public
Participatory Bureaucracy in American Democracy
, pp. 1 - 27

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588141.002 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Dewey, John, The School and Society and The Child and the Curriculum (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), p. 25Google Scholar

Statement of Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance, FDA, Merck, and Vioxx: Putting Patient Safety First? 108th Congress, 2nd Session, November 18, 2004 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004), p. 3Google Scholar

Institute of Medicine, The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2007), p. 17Google Scholar

Kaitin, Kenneth I., Ann Melville and Betsy Morris, “FDA Advisory Committees and the New Drug Approval Process,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 29 (1989): 886–890CrossRef Google Scholar

Balla, Steven J. and Wright, John R., “Can Advisory Committees Facilitate Congressional Oversight of the Bureaucracy?”Congress at Work, Congress on Display (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 167–187Google Scholar

Balla, Steven J. and Wright, John R., “Interest Groups, Advisory Committees, and Congressional Control of the Bureaucracy,”American Journal of Political Science 45 (2001): 799–812CrossRef Google Scholar

Olson, Lynn“Board Acts to Bring NAEP in Line with ESEA,”Education Week 21 (2002): 22–24Google Scholar

National Center for Education Statistics, Directory of NAEP Publications (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999)Google Scholar

Vinovskis, Maris, Overseeing the Nation’s Report Card: The Creation and Evolution of the National Assessment Governing Board (Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, 1998), p. 31Google Scholar

Weber, Max, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 233Google Scholar

Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations (London: Free Press of Glencoe, Collier-MacMillian Ltd., 1947), p. 339Google Scholar

Bok, Sissela, Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation (New York: Random House, 1983)Google Scholar

McCubbins, Matthew and Schwartz, Thomas, “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols vs. Fire Alarms,” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 165–179CrossRef Google Scholar

McCubbins, Mathew, Noll, Roger, and Weingast, Barry, “Structure and Process, Policy and Politics: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies,” Virginia Law Review 75 (1989): 431–482CrossRef Google Scholar

Epstein, David and O’Halloran, Sharyn, Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRef Google Scholar

Huber, John and Shipan, Charles R., Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRef Google Scholar

Kerwin, Cornelius, Rulemaking (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2003), pp. 62–66Google Scholar

Yackee, Jason Webb and Yackee, Susan Webb, “Bias Toward Business?”Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 128–139CrossRef Google Scholar

Balla, Steven J., “Administrative Procedures and Political Control of the Bureaucracy,” American Political Science Review 92 (1998): 663–673CrossRef Google Scholar

Roberts, Alasdair, Blacked Out (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 13–18CrossRef Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel, Chattopadhyay, Jacqueline, Moffitt, Susan, and Nall, Clayton, “The Complications of Controlling Agency Time Discretion: FDA Review Deadlines and Postmarket Safety,” American Journal of Political Science 56 (2012): 98–114CrossRef Google Scholar

Bawn, Kathleen, “Political Control Versus Expertise: Congressional Choices About Administrative Procedures,” American Political Science Review 89 (1995): 62–73CrossRef Google Scholar

Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRef Google Scholar

Gormley, William T., Jr. and Balla, Steven J., Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and Performance (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007)Google Scholar

Warren, Kenneth F., Administrative Law in the Political System, 4th ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004), p. 282Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P., Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P., The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), p. 14Google Scholar

Lipsky, Michael, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980)Google Scholar

Cohen, David K. and Moffitt, Susan L., The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation Fix the Schools? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), pp. 17–44CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, James Q., Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (New York: Basic Books, 1989), pp. 25–26Google Scholar

Gailmard, Sean and Patty, John W., Learning While Governing: Expertise and Accountability in the Executive Branch (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012)Google Scholar

Balogh, Brian, Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945–1975 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRef Google Scholar

Rourke, Francis E., Secrecy and Publicity: Dilemmas of Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961) pp. 5, 10–11, 138Google Scholar

Crozier, Michel, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p.153Google Scholar

Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, Secrecy: The American Experience (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998)Google Scholar

Meier, Kenneth J. and Bohte, John, Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007), p. 66Google Scholar

Wilensky, Harold, Organizational Intelligence (New York: Basic Books, 1969), p. 144Google Scholar

Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salancik, Gerald R., The External Control of Organizations (New York: Harper and Row, 2003), p. 104Google Scholar

Page, Scott E., “Uncertainty, Difficulty and Complexity,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 20 (2008): 115–149CrossRef Google Scholar

Thomas, John Clayton, Citizen, Customer, Partner: Engaging the Public in Public Management (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2012), pp. 10–12, 85–101Google Scholar

Brudney, Jeffrey and England, Robert, “Toward a definition of the co-production concept,” Public Administration Review 43 (1983): 59–65CrossRef Google Scholar

Osborne, Sean P., “Delivering Public Services: Time for a New Theory?” Public Management Review 12 (2010): 1–10CrossRef Google Scholar

Meier, Kenneth J. and O’Toole, Laurence J., Bureaucracy in a Democratic State: A Governance Perspective (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006)Google Scholar

Salamon, Lester M., The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 4Google Scholar

McCarty, Nolan, “Complexity, Capacity and Capture,” in Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It, edited by Carpenter, Daniel and Moss, David (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 99–123Google Scholar

Lindblom, Charles and Cohen, David K., Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979)Google Scholar

Fung, Archon and Wright, Erik Olin, “Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance,” Politics and Society 29 (2001): 5–41CrossRef Google Scholar

Brown, Mark B., “Fairly Balanced: The Politics of Representation on Government Advisory Committees,” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2008): 547–560CrossRef Google Scholar

Knippenberg, Daan van and Schippers, Michaéla C., “Work Group Diversity,” Annual Review of Psychology 58 (2007): 515–541CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Page, Scott E., The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar

Bohman, James, Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996)Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P., “Groups, the Media, Agency Waiting Costs and FDA Drug Approval,” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2002): 490–505CrossRef Google Scholar

Rourke, Francis E., Bureaucracy, Politics and Public Policy, 2nd ed. (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1976), p. 55Google Scholar

Pateman, Carol, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)CrossRef Google Scholar

Fung, Archon, Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 3Google Scholar

Coglianese, Cary, “Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking,” Duke Law Journal 46 (1997): 1255–1349CrossRef Google Scholar

Langbein, Laura, “Responsive Bureaus, Equity and Regulatory Negotiation,” Journal of Public Policy Analysis and Management 21 (2002): 446–465CrossRef Google Scholar

Schuck, Peter H., and Kochevar, Steven, “Reg Neg Redux: The Career of a Procedural Reform,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law (Forthcoming 2014)CrossRef Google Scholar

Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G., A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963)Google Scholar

Weick, Karl, “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems,” Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1976): 1–19CrossRef Google Scholar

Dahl, Robert, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961), p. 124Google Scholar

Meier, Kenneth J., Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, Wrinkle, Robert D., and Polinard, J. L., “Structural Choices and Representational Biases: The Post-Election Color of Representation,” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2005): 758–768CrossRef Google Scholar

Keiser, Lael R., Wilkins, Vicky M., Meier, Kenneth J., and Holland, Catherine A., “Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context and Representative Bureaucracy,” American Political Science Review 96 (2002): 553–564CrossRef Google Scholar

Osborne, David and Gaebler, Ted, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992)Google Scholar

Mansbridge, Jane J., “A Deliberative Theory of Interest Representation,” in The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed, edited by Petracca, Mark P. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), pp. 32–57Google Scholar

Mansbridge, Jane J., Beyond Adversary Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), pp. ix–xGoogle Scholar

Bertelli, Anthony and Lynn, Laurence E. Jr., Madison’s Managers: Public Administration and the Constitution (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006)Google Scholar

Urfalino, Philippe, Le Grand Méchant Loup Pharmaceutique (Paris: Les éditions Textuel, 2005)Google Scholar

Wilensky, HaroldOrganizational Intelligence (New York: Basic Books, 1969), pp. 169–172Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar

Hilgartner, Stephen, Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar

Truman, David, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951), p. 458Google Scholar

Derthick, Martha, Policymaking for Social Security (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1979), pp. 100–101Google Scholar

Kaufman, Herbert, The Administrative Behavior of Federal Bureau Chiefs (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1981), pp. 39–40Google Scholar

Gormley, William T. Jr., The Politics of Public Utility Regulation (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983)Google Scholar

Wolanin, Thomas A., Presidential Advisory Committees: Truman to Nixon (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1975)Google Scholar

Price, Don K., Government and Science: Their Dynamic Relation in American Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962) p. 130Google Scholar

Downs, Anthony, Inside Bureaucracy (Boston: Little, Brown Downs, 1967), pp. 207–208CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, Bruce L. R.The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1992), p. 8Google Scholar

Croley, Steven P. and Funk, William F., “The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Good Government,” Yale Journal on Regulation 14 (1997): 451–557Google Scholar

Sellers, Jeffrey M., “State-Society Relations,” The Sage Handbook of Governance, edited by Bevir, Mark (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 124–141CrossRef Google Scholar

Lavertu, Stéphane, Walters, Daniel E., Weimer, David L., “Scientific Expertise and the Balance of Political Interests: MEDCAC and Medicare Coverage Decisions,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (2012): 55–81CrossRef Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office, EPA’s Science Advisory Board Panels: Improved Policies and Procedures Needed to Ensure Independence and Balance (Washington, DC: GAO, 2001), p. 2Google Scholar

Karty, Kevin D., “Closure and Capture in Federal Advisory Committees,” Business and Politics 4 (2002): 213–238CrossRef Google Scholar

McDonnell, Lorraine, Politics, Persuasion and Educational Testing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004)Google Scholar

Weiss, Janet and Gruber, Judith, “Using Knowledge for Control in Fragmented Policy Arenas,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 3 (1984): 225–247CrossRef Google Scholar

Kursh, Harry, The United States Office of Education (Philadelphia: Chilton Company, 1965), pp. 10–11Google Scholar

Hazlett, J. A., A History of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1963–1974 (University of Kansas, Doctoral dissertation, 1974), p. 66Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.