Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T23:45:39.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bureaucratic Agenda Control: Imposition or Bargaining?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Cheryl L. Eavey  and
Gary J. Miller
Cheryl L. Eavey
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Gary J. Miller
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Niskanen's economic model of bureaucratic behavior assumes that bureaucratic agenda control allows the bureau to impose upon a passive legislature its most preferred alternative from among the set of alternatives that dominate the status quo. But does a monopoly on the agenda give bureaus this degree of influence over a voting body? This article reports on experiments that demonstrate that a monopoly on the agenda puts the agenda monopolist in a position to bargain with a voting body, without being able to impose his or her most preferred alternative on that body. This evidence supports theories of bureaucratic-legislative bargaining at the expense of theories of bureaucratic imposition.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , December 1983 , pp. 719 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1983

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

Allison, G. T.Essence of decision. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971.Google Scholar
Berl, J. E., McKelvey, R. D., Ordeshook, P. C., & Winter, M. D.An experimental test of the core in a simple N- person cooperative nonsidepayment game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1976, 20, 453–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borcherding, T. E. (Ed.). Budgetsand bureaucrats: The sources of government growth. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Eavey, C. L., & Miller, G. J.Fairness in majority rule games with a core. American Journal of Political Science, in press.Google Scholar
Fenno, R.The power of the purse: Appropriations politics in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P.Congress: keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P., & Noll, R. G.Voters, legislators and bureaucrats: A rational choice perspective on the growth of government. Journal of Public Economics, 1978, 9, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M. P., & Plott, C. R.Committee decisions under majority rule: An experimental study. American Political Science Review, 1978,, 72, 575–598.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A.Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York: Free Press, 1954.Google Scholar
Isaac, M., & Plott, C. R.Cooperative game models of the influence of the closed rule in three person, majority rule committees: Theory and experiment. In Ordeshook, P. C. (Ed.). Game theory and political science. New York: New York University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Mackay, R., & Weaver, C.On the mutuality of interest between bureaus and high demand review committees: A perverse result. Public Choice, 1979, 34, 481–491.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W. A.Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971.Google Scholar
Orzechowski, W.Economic models of bureaucracy: Survey, extensions, and evidence. In Borcherding, T. L. (Ed.). Budgets and bureaucrats: The sources of government growth. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Plott, C. R.A notion of equilibrium and its possibility under majority rule. American Economic Review, 1967, 57, 787–806.Google Scholar
Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H.Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo. Public Choice, 1978, 33, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K. A.Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 1979, 23, 27–59.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B.Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 1981, 37, 503–519.Google Scholar
Warwick, D. P.A theory of public bureaucracy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A.The politics of the budgetary process, (3d ed.). Boston: Little, Brown, 1979.Google Scholar
Wilson, W.The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 1887, 2, 197–222.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.