Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T11:21:39.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Street-level Bureaucrats, Administrative Power and the Manipulation of Federal Social Security Disability Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Lael R. Keiser
Lael R. Keiser*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The implementation of federal programs provides an opportunity for state officials to impose their own interests on the policy process. The federal government delegates administrative power to the states to implement federal programs. Because elected state officials serve as one of the principals to street-level bureaucrats, these officials should be able to influence these street-level agents to implement policy to further state needs. However, very little research has examined whether street-level bureaucrats act strategically to benefit state interests as they implement policy. In this article, I use Seemingly Unrelated Regression analysis to examine variation in award rates across the 50 states in two federal disability programs, SSI and SSDI. My findings reveal that program incentives lead state street-level bureaucrats to act strategically in implementing these programs. State bureaucrats reduce access to federal programs when state governments incur costs associated with those programs, especially under conditions of fiscal stress.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Summer 2001 , pp. 144 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 The American Political Science Association

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

Anton, Thomas J. 1989. American Federalism and Public Policy: How the System Works. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Bardach, Edward. 1980. The Implementation Game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beamer, Glenn. 1999. Creative Politics: Taxes and Public Goods in a Federal System. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkowitz, Edward. 1987. Disabled Policy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berman, P. 1980. “Thinking About Programmed and Adaptive Implementation: Matching Strategies to Situations.” In Why Policies Succeed or Fail, eds. Ingram, H. and Mann, S.. Beverly Hills, CA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Press, Bernan. 1997. Handbook of U.S. Labor Statistics: Employment, Earnings, Prices, Productivity, and Other Labor Data. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Francis Stokes and Berry, William D.. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations.” American Political Science Review 84:395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States.” American Journal of Political Science. 42:327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 1987. “Policy Politics: If We Can't Govern, Can We Manage?” Political Science Quarterly 102:571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, S., LaPlante, M., and Wilensky, G.. 1986. “Life Expectancy and Health Status of the Aged.” Social Security Bulletin 49(10): 24–48.Google ScholarPubMed
Chubb, John E. 1985. “The Political Economy of Federalism.” American Political Science Review 79: 994–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughlin, Teresa, Ku, Leighton, and Holahan, John. 1994. Medicaid since 1980: Costs, Coverage, and the Shifting Alliance between the Federal Government and the States. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Derthick, Martha. 1972. New Towns In-Town. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Dolgoff, Ralph, Feldstein, Donald, and Skolnik, Louise. 1993. Understanding Social Welfare. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Elazar, Daniel J. 1984. American Federalism: A View from the States. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1982. “Legislative Choice of Regulatory Forms: Legal Process or Administrative Process?” Public Choice 39: 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1985. “Group Concentration and the Delegation of Legislative Authority.” In Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences, ed. Noll, Roger G.. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goggin, Malcolm L., Bowman, Ann O'M, Lester, James P., and O'Toole, Laurence J. Jr. 1990. Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Third Generation. Glenview, IL: Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.Google Scholar
Halpern, Janice D. 1979. “The Social Security Disability Insurance Program: Reasons for its Growth and Prospects for the Future.” New England Economic Review 39: 30–48.Google Scholar
Hasenfeld, Yesheskel. Ed. 1992. Human Services as Complex Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hedge, David M., and Scicchitano, Michael J.. 1994. “Regulating in Space and Time: The Case of Regulatory Federalism.” Journal of Politics 56: 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howards, Irving, Brehm, Henry P., and Nagi, Saad Z.. 1980. Disability: From Social Problem to Federal Program. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Hill, Jeffrey S., and Weissert, Carol S.. 1995. “Implementation and the Irony of Delegation: The Politics of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal.” Journal of Politics 57: 344–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Herbert. 1960. The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Michael B. 1989. The Undeserving Poor: From the War on Poverty to the War on Welfare. New York: Patheon Books.Google Scholar
Keiser, Lael R. 1999. “State Bureaucratic Discretion and the Administration of Social Welfare Programs: The Case of Social Security Disability.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9: 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiser, Lael R., and Soss, Joe. 1998. “With Good Cause: Bureaucratic Discretion and the Politics of Child Support Enforcement.” American Journal of Political Science 42:1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, George A. 1996. “The Institutional Dynamics of Policy Administration: Bureaucratic Influence over Securities Regulation.” American Journal of Political Science 40:1083–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street Level Bureaucrats: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1969. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S. 1992. Introduction to Econometrics. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. 1983. Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. 1993. Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policy Making in the Fourth Branch of Government. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
Majone, G., and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1983. “Implementation as Evolution.” In Implementation, eds. Pressman, J. and Wildavsky, Aaron. 3rd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1984. “The New Economics of Organization.” American Journal of Political Science 28:739–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, Kant, and Rushefsky, Mark E.. 1995. Health Care Politics and Policy in America. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Peterson, Paul. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pindyck, Robert S., and Rubinfeld, Daniel L.. 1991. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Prottas, Jeffrey Manditch. 1979. People-Processing: The Street-Level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Rice, D., and Feldman, J.. 1983. “Living Longer in the United States: Demographic Changes and Health Needs of the Elderly.” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society 61:362–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ringquist, Evan J. 1995. “Political Control and Policy Impact in EPA's Office of Water Quality.” American Journal of Political Science 39:336–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, William. 1987. “Disabilities: Physical.” In Encyclopedia of Social Work. 18th ed. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.Google Scholar
Rourke, Francis E. 1984. Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Scholz, John T., Twombly, Jim, and Headrick, Barbara. 1991. “Street-Level Political Controls over Federal Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 85:829–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, John T., and Wei, Feng Heng. 1986 “Regulatory Enforcement in a Federalist System.” American Political Science Review 80:1249–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, Joe, and Keiser, Lael R.. 1999. “Challenged Bureaucracies: Disability Determinations and the Politics of Administrative Appeals.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Stoker, Robert P. 1991. Reluctant Partners: Implementing Federal Policy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah. 1984. The Disabled State. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stream, Christopher. 1999. “Health Reform in the States: A Model of State Small Group Health Insurance Market Reforms.” Political Research Quarterly 52:499–526.Google Scholar
Thompson, Frank J. 1998. “The Faces of Devolution.” In Medicaid and Devolution: A View from the States, eds. Thompson, Frank and DiIulio, John Jr. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Frank J. Jr., and DiIulio, John, eds. 1998. Medicaid and Devolution: A View from the States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1992. Medicaid: Intergovernmental Trends and Options. Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.Google Scholar
United States Census Bureau. 1991-96. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
United States Department of Health and Human Services. 1992-94. Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
United States General Accounting Office. 1978. A Plan for Improving the Federal Disability Determination Process by Bringing It under Complete Federal Management Should Be Developed. Washington, DC: HRD-78-146.Google Scholar
United States General Accounting Office. 1992. Social Security: Racial Differences in Disability Decisions Warrants Further Investigation. Washington, DC: HRD-92-56.Google Scholar
United States General Accounting Office. 1994. Medicaid: States Use Illusory Approaches to Shift Program Costs to Federal Government. GAO/HEHS −94−133.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wood, B. Dan. 1992. “Modeling Federal Implementation as a System: The Clean Air Case.” American Journal of Political Science 36: 40–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. Dan, and Waterman, Richard. 1994. Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of a Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar