Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-lgdn2 Total loading time: 0.208 Render date: 2021-10-28T04:48:17.006Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Democratic Accountability and the Politics of Mass Administrative Reorganization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

Abstract

Governments face different incentives when they reorganize many administrative agencies at one time rather than making infrequent, case-by-case changes. This article develops a theory of mass administrative reorganizations, which posits that the politics of reorganization is focused on government accountability. Viewing mass reorganization as a structured decision, it argues that choices about independence, agency organization and functional disposition have different impacts on the political costs of administrative policy making. Analyzing novel data from a recent British reorganization with sequential logistic statistical models provides substantial support for these claims. The study challenges the focus on organizational survival in the existing literature. By eschewing more fundamental political questions of democratic accountability, the prevailing approach masks essential politics, and in the context of this study, all influence of conflict due to party and agency policy positions.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

New York University (emails: bertelli@nyu.edu, j.andrew.sinclair@nyu.edu). Funding was provided by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant Ref. ES/J010553/1). We thank Haram Lee, George Krause, Oliver James, Sanghee Park, Stéphane Lavertu, Chris Skelcher, Katherine Dommett and Katherine Tonkiss for assistance with data sources and helpful comments. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123416000077.

References

Alesina, Alberto, and Summers, Lawrence H.. 1993. Central Bank Independence and Macroeconomic Performance: Some Comparative Evidence. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 25 (2):151162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1992. The Political Control of Bureaucracies Under Asymmetric Information. American Journal of Political Science 36 (2):509524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Christopher R., Burden, Barry C., and Howell, William G.. 2010. After Enactment: The Lives and Deaths of Federal Programs. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1):117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M. 2006a. Delegating to the Quango: Ex Ante and Ex Post Ministerial Constraints. Governance 19 (2):229249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M. 2006b. Governing The Quango: An Auditing And Cheating Model Of Quasi-Governmental Authorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (2):239261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M. 2008. Credible Governance? Transparency, Political Control, the Personal Vote and British Quangos. Political Studies 56 (4):807829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M., and Whitford, Andrew B.. 2009. Perceiving Credible Commitments: How Independent Regulators Shape Elite Perceptions of Regulatory Quality. British Journal of Political Science 39 (3):517537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M., and Grose, Christian R.. 2011. The Lengthened Shadow of Another Institution? Ideal Point Estimates for the Executive Branch and Congress. American Journal of Political Science 55 (4):767781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M., and Lynn, Laurence E. Jr. 2006. Madison’s Managers: Public Administration and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M., and John, Peter. 2013a. Public Policy Investment: Priority Setting and Conditional Representation in British Statecraft. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony M., and John, Peter. 2013b. Public Policy Investment: Risk and Return in British Politics. British Journal of Political Science 43 (4):741773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boin, Arjen, Kuipers, Sanneke, and Steenbergen, Marco. 2010. The Life and Death of Public Organizations: A Question of Institutional Design? Governance 23 (3):385410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, Mark. 2010. Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism. West European Politics 33 (5):946967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A. Colin, and Trivedi, Pravin K.. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canavan, Chris, and Tommasi, Mariano. 1997. On the Credibility of Alternative Exchange Rate Regimes. Journal of Development Economics 54 (1):101122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, D. P. 2010. Reputation and Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel P., and Lewis, David E.. 2004. Political Learning From Rare Events: Poisson Inference, Fiscal Constraints, and the Lifetime of Bureaus. Political Analysis 12 (3):201232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, José Antonio. 2006. Presidentialism, Electoral Identifiability, and Budget Balances in Democratic Systems. American Political Science Review 100 (3):353368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Bertelli, Anthony, Grose, Christian R., Lewis, David E., and Nixon, David C.. 2012. Separated Powers in the United States: The Ideology of Agencies, Presidents, and Congress. American Journal of Political Science 56 (2):341354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conservative Party. 2010. The Conservative Manifesto 2010: Invitation to Join the Government of Britain. Available from: https://goo.gl/yxeNX0, accessed 9 March 2016.Google Scholar
Corder, J. Kevin. 2004. Are Federal Programs Immortal? Estimating the Hazard of Program Termination. American Politics Research 32 (1):325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Kathleen M. 2013. Seeking Experts or Agents of Control: The Use of Advisory Committees in Bureaucratic Policymaking. Unpublished Manuscript, Los Angeles, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, Michelle. 1997. Regulatory Strategies, Delegation and European Market Integration. Journal of European Public Policy 5 (3):87122.Google Scholar
Epstein, David, and O’Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making Under Separate Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Flinders, Matthew. 2009. The Politics of Patronage in the United Kingdom: Shrinking Reach and Diluted Permeation. Governance 22 (4):547570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilardi, Fabrizio. 2002. Policy Credibility and Delegation to Independent Regulatory Agencies: A Comparative Empirical Analysis. Journal of European Public Policy 9 (6):873893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilardi, Fabrizio. 2007. The Same, But Different: Central Banks, Regulatory Agencies, and the Politics of Delegation to Independent Authorities. Comparative European Politics 5 (3):303327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilardi, Fabrizio, and Maggetti, Martino. 2011. The Independence of Regulatory Authorities. In Handbook on the Politics of Regulation, Edited by David Levi-Faur, 201214. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Greve, Carsten, Flinders, Matthew, and Van Thiel, Sandra. 1999. Quangos – What’s in a Name? Defining Quangos from a Comparative Perspective. Governance 12 (2):129146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrendorf, Berthold. 1999. Transparency, Reputation, and Credibility Under Floating and Pegged Exchange Rates. Journal of International Economics 49:3150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, Christopher. 2002. The Risk Game and the Blame Game. Government and Opposition 37 (1):1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, Christopher. 2010. The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Murray J. 1995. The Political Economy of Public Administration: Institutional Choice in the Public Sector. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Murray J., and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1989. Commentary on ‘Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies:’ Administrative Process and Organizational Form as Legislative Responses to Agency Costs. Virginia Law Review 75 (2):499508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Oliver. 2003. The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest Versus Bureau-Shaping Explanations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Oliver, Petrovsky, Nicolai, Moseley, Alice, and Boyne, George. 2014. The Politics of Agency Death: Ministers and the Survival of Government Agencies in a Parliamentary System. Working Paper. Exeter: University of Exeter.Google Scholar
John, Peter, Bertelli, Anthony M., Jennings, Will, and Bevan, Shaun. 2013. Policy Agendas in British Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Herbert. 1976. Are Government Organizations Immortal?. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Keefer, Philip, and Stasavage, David. 2002. Checks and Balances, Private Information, and the Credibility of Monetary Commitments. International Organization 56 (4):751774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefer, Philip, and Stasavage, David. 2003. The Limits of Delegation: Veto Players, Central Bank Independence, and the Credibility of Monetary Policy. American Political Science Review 97 (3):407423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Rodrick, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1991. The Logic of Delegation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Klijn, Erik-Hans, and Skelcher, Chris. 2007. Democracy and Governance Networks: Compatible or Not? Public Administration 85 (3):587608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David E. 2002. The Politics of Agency Termination: Confronting the Myth of Agency Immortality. The Journal of Politics 64 (1):89107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David E. 2004. The Adverse Consequences of the Politics of Agency Design for Presidential Management in the United States: The Relative Durability of Insulated Agencies. British Journal of Political Science 34 (3):377404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1979. The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Macey, Jonathan R. 1992. Organizational Design and Political Control of Administrative Agencies. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 8 (1):93110.Google Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico. 2001. Two Logics of Delegation Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance. European Union Politics 2 (1):103122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. Rethinking Representation. American Political Science Review 97 (4):515528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation. Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (4):369398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1990. The Politics of Structural Choice: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy. In Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond, Edited by Oliver Williamson, 116153. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moffitt, Susan L. 2010. Promoting Agency Reputation through Public Advice: Advisory Committee Use in the FDA. Journal of Politics 72 (3):880893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, Susan L. 2014. Making Policy Public. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Leary, Chris. 2015. Agency Termination in the UK: What Explains the ‘Bonfire of the Quangos’? West European Politics 38 (6):13271344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Sanghee. 2013. What Causes the Death of Public Sector Organizations? Understanding Structural Changes and Continuities in Korean Quangos. International Public Management Journal 16 (3):413437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennock, J. Roland. 1952. Responsiveness, Responsibility, and Majority Rule. American Political Science Review 46 (3):790807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piotrowski, Suzanne J. 2008. Governmental Transparency In The Path Of Administrative Reform. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 1989. Constitutional Design and Citizen Electoral Control. Journal of Theoretical Politics 1 (2):107130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Thomas, Bara, Judith, and Bartle, John. 2011. The UK Coalition Agreement of 2010: Who Won? Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 21 (2):295312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy. American Political Science Review 103 (2):214230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Richard. 2010. Seven Days: BONFIRE OF THE QUANGOS: Shock and Awe at the Names of Tinder for the Civil Pyre. The Observer, 17 October 2010.Google Scholar
Ruder, Alex I. 2015. Agency Design, Mass Media, and the Blame for Agency Scandals. Presidential Studies Quarterly 45 (3):514539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stott, Tony. 1995. ‘Snouts in the Trough’: The Politics of Quangos. Parliamentary Affairs 48 (2):323340.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 1990. Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Thiel, Sandra. 2004. Trends in the Public Sector: Explaining the Increased Use of Quasi-Autonomous Bodies in Policy Implementation. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16 (2):175201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Lehmann, Pola, Merz, Nicolas, Regel, Sven, Werner, Annika, Lacewell, Onawa P., and Henrike, Schultze. 2013. The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2013b . Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. Kent. 1986. The Politics of Blame Avoidance. Journal of Public Policy 6 (4):371398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilks, Stephen, and Bartle, Ian. 2002. The Unanticipated Consequences of Creating Independent Competition Agencies. West European Politics 25 (1):148172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. A Bias Toward Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the Bureaucracy. Journal of Politics 68:128139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yesilkagit, Kutsal. 2014. There is More Than Life and Death: A Competing Risks Approach to Agency Duration. Paper Prepared for the 2014 SOG Conference ‘What Makes Agencies Tick’, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 5–7 January 2014.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Bertelli and Sinclair Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: File

Bertelli and Sinclair supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Bertelli and Sinclair supplementary material(File)
File 39 KB
13
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Democratic Accountability and the Politics of Mass Administrative Reorganization
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Democratic Accountability and the Politics of Mass Administrative Reorganization
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Democratic Accountability and the Politics of Mass Administrative Reorganization
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *