Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T19:32:38.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Learning from Rare Events: Poisson Inference, Fiscal Constraints, and the Lifetime of Bureaus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Daniel P. Carpenter  and
David E. Lewis
Daniel P. Carpenter
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Harvard University, and Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. e-mail: dcarpenter@latte.harvard.edu
David E. Lewis
Affiliation:
Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. e-mail: delewis@princeton.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do political actors learn about their environment when the “data” provided by political processes are characterized by rare events and highly discontinuous variation? In such learning environments, what can theory predict about how learning actors will take costly actions that are difficult to reverse (e.g., eliminating programs, approving a risky new product, revising a security policy, firing or recalling an appointed or elected official)? We develop a formal model for this problem and apply it to the termination of bureaucratic agencies. The conventional wisdom that “the older a bureau is, the less likely it is to die” (Downs 1967, Inside Bureaucracy) persists but has never been properly tested. This paper offers a learning-based stochastic optimization model of agency termination that offers two counterintuitive predictions. First, politicians terminate agencies only after learning about them, so the hazard of agencies should be nonmonotonic, contradicting Downs's prediction. Second, if terminating agencies is costly, agencies are least likely to be terminated when politicians are fiscally constrained or when the deficit is high. We assess the model by developing a battery of tests for the shape of the hazard function and estimate these and other duration models using data on U.S. federal government agencies created between 1946 and 1997. Results show that the hazard rate of agency termination is strongly nonmonotonic and that agencies are less likely to be terminated under high deficits and divided government. For the first 50 years of the agency duration distribution, the modal termination hazard occurs at five years after agencies are enabled. Methodologically, our approach ties the functional form of a hazard model tightly to theory and presents an applied “agenda” for testing the shape of an empirical hazard function. With extensions, our model and empirical framework are applicable to a range of political phenomena.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , Summer 2004 , pp. 201 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Political Methodology 2004 

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

Arnold, Peri E. 1998. Making the Managerial Presidency: Comprehensive Reorganization Planning, 1905–1996. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Bardach, Eugene. 1976. “Policy Termination as a Political Process.” Policy Sciences 7: 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan, and Tucker, Richard. 1998. “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Data with a Binary Dependent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 1260–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behn, Robert. 1978. “How to Terminate a Public Policy: A Dozen Hints for the Would-be Terminator.” Policy Analysis 4: 393–414.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, R., and Edin, P.-A. 1992. “Time Aggregation and the Distributional Shape of Unemployment Duration.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 7: 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel P. 2000. “Stochastic Prediction and Estimation of Nonlinear Political Durations: An Application to the Lifetime of Bureaus.” In Political Complexity: Nonlinear Models of Politics, ed. Richards, Diana. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 209–238.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel P. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Networks, Reputations and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cleves, Mario A., and Gould, William W., and Gutierrez, Roberto G. 2002. An Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.Google Scholar
Corder, Kevin. 2001. “Structural Choice and Political Control of Bureaucracy: Updating Federal Credit Programs.” Unpublished manuscript, Western Michigan University.Google Scholar
Cranford, John R. 1988. “Options Range from Studies in Total Overhaul: S&L Crisis Forcing New Look at Deposit Insurance.” CQ Weekly, September 3, p. 2457 (on-line edition).Google Scholar
Cranford, John R. 1989. “Agreement on S&L Bailout Faces Dust-Up in Senate.” CQ Weekly, July 29, p. 1926 (on-line edition).Google Scholar
Daniels, Mark Ross. 1997. Terminating Public Programs: An American Political Paradox. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
de Leon, Peter. 1983. “Policy Evaluation and Program Termination.” Policy Studies Review 2: 631–47.Google Scholar
de Leon, Peter. 1987. “Policy Termination as a Political Phenomenon.” In The Politics of Program Evaluation, ed. Palumbo, D. J. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 173–199.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Stevenson, Randy. 2000. “Cabinet Terminations and Critical Events.” American Political Science Review 94: 627–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixit, Avinash. 1993. The Art of Smooth Pasting. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embrechts, P., and Kluppelberg, C. 1993. “Some Aspects of Insurance Mathematics.” Theory of Probability and Its Applications 38: 374–416.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Frantz, Janet E. 1992. “Reviving and Revising a Termination Model.” Policy Sciences 25: 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantz, Janet E. 1997. “The High Cost of Policy Termination.” International Journal of Public Administration 20: 2097–2119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granato, Jim. 1991. “An Agenda for Econometric Modeling.” Political Analysis 3: 123–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazma, K., and Klebaner, F. C. 1995. “Representation of Markov Chains as Stochastic Differential Equations.” Lecture Notes in Statistics 99: 144–151.Google Scholar
Hogwood, Brian W., and Guy Peters, B. 1985. The Pathology of Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonathan, and Sala, Brian R. 1996. “Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral Connection.” American Political Science Review 90: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Herbert. 1976. Are Government Organizations Immortal? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Khademian, Anne M. 1996. Checking on Banks: Autonomy and Accountability in Three Federal Agencies. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Klebaner, Fima C. 1998. Introduction to Stochastic Calculus with Applications. London: Imperial College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramkov, D. O., and Mordecki, Ernesto. 1995. “Optimal Stopping Rules for Poisson Processes.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Kramkov, D. O., and Mordecki, Ernesto. 1999. “Optimal Stopping and Maximal Inequalities for Poisson Processes.” Publicaciones Matematicas del Uruguay 8: 153–178.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Ulla, and Vaupel, James W. 1993. “Hutterite Fecundability by Age and Parity: Strategies for Frailty Modeling of Event Histories.” Demography 30: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, David E. 2000. “Political Insulation and the Durability of United States Government Agencies.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Lewis, David E. 2002. “The Politics of Agency Termination: Confronting the Myth of Agency Immortality.” Journal of Politics 64: 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David E. 2003. Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design: Political Insulation in the United States Government Bureaucracy, 1946–1997. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1979. The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan M., and Poole, Keith T. 1995. “Veto Power and Legislation: An Empirical Analysis of Executive and Legislative Bargaining from 1961 to 1986.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 11: 282–312.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., and Noll, Roger, and Weingast, Barry. 1989. “Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies.” Virginia Law Review 75: 431–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., and Schwartz, Thomas. 1984. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. 1980. “Executive Reorganization of Government: Impact on Employment and Expenditures.” American Journal of Political Science 24: 396–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1989. “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure.” In Can the Government Govern?, eds. Chubb, John E. and Peterson, Paul E. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 267–329.Google Scholar
Mordecki, Ernesto. 1997. “Optimal Stopping for a Compound Poisson Process with Exponential Jumps.” Publicaciones Matemáticas del Uruguay 7: 55–66.Google Scholar
Mordecki, Ernesto. 1999. “Optimal Stopping for a Diffusion with Jumps.” Finance and Stochastics 3: 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith. 1998. “Estimating a Basic Space from a Set of Issue Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 954–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Irene S. 2000. The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting, Spending, Borrowing and Balancing. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Salamon, Lester M. 1981. “The Question of Goals: Why Reorganization Should Serve Policy rather than Administrative Goals.” In Federal Reorganization: What Have We Learned?, ed. Szanton, Peter. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 58–84.Google Scholar
Shiryaev, Albert N. 1978. Optimal Stopping Rules. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A., and Smithburg, Donald W., and Thompson, Victor A. 1950. Public Administration, 1st ed. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Szanton, Peter, ed. 1981. Federal Reorganization: What Have We Learned? Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Taylor, Howard M., and Karlin, Samuel. 1998. An Introduction to Stochastic Modeling, 3rd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Ting, Michael M. 2003. “A Strategic Theory of Bureaucratic Redundancy.” American Journal of Political Science 47: 274–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Congress. Senate. 1996. Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on S. 1678 to Abolish the Department of Energy, and for Other Purposes. 104th Cong., 2nd sess. September 4.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar