Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-n4bck Total loading time: 0.309 Render date: 2022-08-18T02:44:47.169Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Participation, process and policy: the informational value of politicised judicial review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Sean Gailmard
Affiliation:
Charles & Louise Travers Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, USA E-mail: gailmard@berkeley.edu
John W. Patty
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, USA E-mail: jwpatty@uchicago.edu

Abstract

We develop a model of “notice and comment” rulemaking, focussing on strategic issues facing agencies and interest groups in light of judicial review in this process. Specifically, we analyse the incentives for agencies and groups to produce and reveal information during rulemaking. We show that judicial review can produce informed policymaking, but that participatory rulemaking can bias agency policymaking in favour of groups with access to the rule-making process. In addition, the model allows an analysis of doctrines of judicial review of agency policymaking. The model reveals that “politicised” judicial review can be beneficial because of its effects on agency incentives for information acquisition in policymaking. Accordingly, socially optimal judicial review may be “legally irrational” and, contrary to standard doctrines of judicial review in the United States, judicial deference to rules with thin records can be optimal.

Type
Research Article
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.)

References

Aman, A. C. and Mayton, W. T. (2001) Administrative Law, 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
Ashworth, S. and Shotts, K. (2011) Challengers, Democratic Contestation, and Electoral Accountability, Working Paper, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Bernstein, M. H. (1955) Regulating Business by Independent Commission. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, F., Gailmard, S. and Patty, J. (2006) Whose Ear to Bend? Information Sources and Venue Choice in Policy Making. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1(2): 139169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewatripont, M. and Tirole, J. (1999) Advocates. Journal of Political Economy 107: 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailmard, S. and Patty, J. W. (2007) Slackers and Zealots: Civil Service, Policy Discretion, and Bureaucratic Expertise. American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 873889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailmard, S. and Patty, J. W. (2012) Learning While Governing: Information, Accountability, and Executive Branch Institutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gailmard, S. and Patty, J. W. (2013) Stovepiping. Journal of Theoretical Politics 25(3): 388411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, S. P. (1952) Marasmus of the ICC: The Commission, the Railroads, and the Public Interest. The Yale Law Journal 61: 467509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laffont, J.-J. and Tirole, J. (1991) The Politics of Government Decision-Making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4): 10891127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, J. F. and Stephenson, M. C. (2010) Legislation and Regulation. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Martin, A. D. and Quinn, K. M. (2002) Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the US Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2): 134153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashaw, J. L. (1994) Improving the Environment of Agency Rulemaking: An Essay on Management, Games, and Accountability. Law and Contemporary Problems 57(2): 185257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, M., Noll, R. and Weingast, B. (1987) Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3(2): 243277.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M., Noll, R. and Weingast, B. (1989) Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies. Virginia Law Review 75(2): 431489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGarity, T. O. (1992) Some Thoughts on “Deossifying” the Rulemaking Process. Duke Law Journal 41(6): 13851462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, T. W. (1996) Capture Theory and the Courts: 1967–1983. Chicago-Kent Law Review 72: 10391118.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1986) Relying on the Information of Interested Parties. The RAND Journal of Economics 17(1): 1832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, W. (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Prendergast, C. (2003) The Limits of Bureaucratic Effciency. Journal of Political Economy 111: 929958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prendergast, C. (2007) The Motivation and Bias of Bureaucrats. American Economic Review 97: 180196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, M. C. (2006) A Costly Signaling Theory of “Hard Look” Judicial Review. Administrative Law Review 58(4): 753814.Google Scholar
Stephenson, M. C. (2008) Evidentiary Standards and Information Acquisition in Public Law. American Law and Economics Review 10: 351387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, W. (2011) Revisiting the Impact of Judicial Review on Agency Rulemakings: An Empirical Investigation. William & Mary Law Review 53: 17171795.Google Scholar
Warren, P. L. (2012) Independent Auditors, Bias, and Political Agency. Journal of Public Economics 96(1): 7888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, M. F. (2015) Deference Asymmetries: Distortions in the Evolution of Regulatory Law. Texas Law Review 93: 1432.Google Scholar
Wiseman, A. E. (2009) Delegation and Positive-Sum Bureaucracies. The Journal of Politics 71(3): 9981014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, J. W. and Yackee, S. W. (2009) Administrative Procedures and Bureaucratic Performance: Is Federal Rule-Making “Ossified”? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(2): 261282.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. W. and Yackee, S. W. (2012) Testing the Ossification Thesis: An Empirical Examination of Federal Regulatory Volume and Speed, 1950–1990. George Washington Law Review 80(5): 14141492.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gailmard and Patty supplementary material S1

Appendix

Download Gailmard and Patty supplementary material S1(PDF)
PDF 262 KB
Supplementary material: File

Gailmard and Patty supplementary material S2

Appendix

Download Gailmard and Patty supplementary material S2(File)
File 25 KB
13
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Participation, process and policy: the informational value of politicised judicial review
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Participation, process and policy: the informational value of politicised judicial review
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Participation, process and policy: the informational value of politicised judicial review
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? *