Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Influence and the Administrative Process: Lobbying the U.S. President's Office of Management and Budget

  • SIMON F. HAEDER (a1) and SUSAN WEBB YACKEE (a1)
Abstract

All administrative processes contain points of entry for politics, and the U.S. president's use of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review government regulations is no exception. Specifically, OMB review can open up a pathway for interest groups to lobby for policy change. We theorize that interest group lobbying can be influential during OMB review, especially when there is consensus across groups. We use a selection model to test our argument with more than 1,500 regulations written by federal agencies that were subjected to OMB review. We find that lobbying is associated with change during OMB review. We also demonstrate that, when only business groups lobby, we are more likely to see rule change; however, the same is not true for public interest groups. We supplement these results with illustrative examples suggesting that interest groups can, at times, use OMB review to influence the content of legally binding government regulations.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Simon F. Haeder is Doctoral Student, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 110 North Hall, 1050 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706, 559.908.2704 (haeder@wisc.edu).
Susan Webb Yackee is Professor, Department of Political Science & the La Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1225 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, 608.265.6017 (yackee@wisc.edu).
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

A. Colin Cameron , and Pravin K. Trivedi . 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A. Colin Cameron , and Pravin K. Trivedi . 2010. Microeconometrics Using Stata. Revised ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Joshua D. Clinton , and David E. Lewis . 2008. “Expert Opinion, Agency Characteristics, and Agency Preferences.” Political Analysis 16 (1): 320.

Jeffrey E. Cohen 2012. “Interest Groups and Presidential Approval.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42 (3): 431–54.

Joseph Cooper , and William West . 1988. “Presidential Power and Republican Government: The Theory and Practice of OMB Review.” Journal of Politics 50 (4): 864–95.

Steven P. Croley 1998. “Theories of Regulation: Incorporating the Administrative Process.” Columbia Law Review 98: 1168.

Steven Croley . 2003. “White House Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Empirical Investigation.” University of Chicago Law Review 70 (3): 821–85.

Christopher C. DeMuth , and Douglas H. Ginsburg . 1986. “White House Review of Agency Rulemaking.” Havard Law Review 99: 1075–88.

E. Donald Elliott . 1994. “TMQ-Ing OMB: Or Why Regulatory Review under Executive Order 12,291 Works Poorly and What President Clinton Should Do about It.” Law and Contemporary Problems 57 (2): 167–84.

Scott R. Furlong 1998. “Political Influence on the Bureaucracy: The Bureaucracy Speaks.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 8 (1): 3965.

Natalie S. Glance , and Bernardo A. Huberman . 1994. “The Dynamics of Social Dilemmas.” Scientific American 270 (3): 7681.

Marissa Martino Golden . 1998. “Interest Groups in the Rule-making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 245–70.

James J. Heckman 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47: 153–61.

Thomas T. Holyoke 2004. “By Invitation Only: Interest Group Access to the Oval Office.” American Review of Politics 25 (Fall): 221–40.

Elena Kagan . 2001. “Presidential Administration.” Harvard Law Review 114: 2245–385.

David E. Lewis 2008. The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

David E. Lewis 2009. “Revisiting the Administrative Presidency: Policy, Patronage, and Agency Competence.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 (1): 6073.

Thomas McGarity . 1991. Reinventing Rationality: The Role of Regulatory Analysis in the Federal Bureaucracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Amy Melissa McKay , and Susan Webb Yackee . 2007. “Interest Group Competition on Federal Agency Rules.” American Politics Research 35 (3): 336–57.

Terry M. Moe , and Scott A. Wilson . 1994. “Presidents and the Politics of Structure.” Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 144.

Keith Naughton , Celeste Schmid , Susan Webb Yackee , and Xueyong Zhan . 2009. “Understanding Commenter Influence during Agency Rule Development.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28 (2): 258–77.

Stephanie P. Newbold , and David H. Rosenbloom . 2007. “Critical Reflections on Hamiltonian Perspectives on Rule-making and Legislative Proposal Initiatives by the Chief Executive.” Public Administration Review 67 (6): 1049–56.

Richard H. Pildes , and Cass R. Sunstein . 1995. “Reinventing the Regulatory State.” University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1129.

Patrick Puhani . 2000. “The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique.” Journal of Economic Surveys 14 (1): 5368.

David H. Rosenbloom 2011. “Federalist No. 10: How Do Factions Affect the President as Administrator-in-chief?Public Administration Review 71 (1): 522–28.

Andrew Rudalevige . 2005. The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate, Vol. 3. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Francis Vella . 1998. “Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey.” Journal of Human Resources 33: 127–69.

William F. West 2004. “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis.” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 6680.

William F. West 2005. “The Institutionalization of Regulatory Review: Organizational Stability and Responsive Competence at OIRA.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (1): 7693.

William F. West 2006. “Presidential Leadership and Administrative Coordination: Examining the Theory of a Unified Executive.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 433–56.

William F. West , and Connor Raso . 2013. “Who Shapes the Rulemaking Agenda? Implications for Bureaucratic Responsiveness and Bureaucratic Control.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (3): 495519.

Alan E. Wiseman 2009. “Delegation and Positive-Sum Bureaucracies.” Journal of Politics 71: 9981014.

Jason Webb Yackee , and Susan Webb Yackee . 2006. “A Bias towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 128–39.

Jason Webb Yackee , and Susan Webb Yackee . 2009. “Is the Bush Bureaucracy Any Different? A Macro-empirical Examination of Notice and Comment Rulemaking under ‘43.’” In President George W. Bush's Influence over Bureaucracy and Policy: Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Powers, eds. C. Provost and P. Teske . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 41–59.

Susan Webb Yackee . 2006. “Sweet-talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 16 (1): 103–24.

Susan Webb Yackee . 2012. “The Politics of Ex Parte Lobbying: Pre-Proposal Agenda Building and Blocking during Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22: 373–93.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 31
Total number of PDF views: 387 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1587 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th August 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.