Bureaucracies often provide information to legislatures in an effort to influence the agenda. This paper assesses whether data affects this influence, arguing quantitative support can increase the likelihood of legislative discussion and passage of bills related to a given topic. I also assess the impact of centralization on an agency’s ability to provide information and shape legislative agendas. I find including data in bureaucratic reports can significantly increase an agency’s influence on the legislature, but this effect is only present in a centralized setting. These results suggest centralized agencies are better equipped to marshal quantitative support for arguments to legislatures.
AmannR. (2000). What works?: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services (1st ed.). Bristol University Press, JSTOR.
2.
BaekgaardM.MortensenP. B.Bech SeebergH. (2018). The bureaucracy and the policy agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux045
3.
BarkT. (2021). Information provision as agenda setting: A study of bureaucracy’s role in higher education policy. Regulation & Governance, 15, 408–427.
4.
BarkT.FryarA. H. (2018). Politics and presidents: The relationship between SHEEOs and campus leaders. In TandbergD. A.SponslerB. A.HannaR. W.GuilbeauJ. P. (Eds.), The state higher education executive officer and the public good: Developing new leadership for improved policy, practice, and research (pp. 193–215). Teachers College Press.
5.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
6.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2015). The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America. University of Chicago Press.
7.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D.MacLeodM. C. (1998). Lessons from the trenches: Ensuring quality, reliability, and usability in the creation of a new data source. The Political Methodologist, 8(2), 1–10.
8.
BreunigC.KoskiC.MortensenP. B. (2010). Stability and punctuations in public spending: A comparative study of budget functions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(3), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup028
9.
CarpenterD. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton University Press.
10.
DahlR. (1950). Congress and foreign policy. Harcourt, Brace.
11.
DresselP. L.FreemanT. M.LyndA. B. (1980). The autonomy of public colleges. Jossey-Bass.
12.
DwidarM. A. (2021). Diverse lobbying coalitions and influence in notice-and-comment rulemaking. Policy Studies Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12431
13.
FeldmanM. S.MarchJ. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 171. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392467
GailmardS.PattyJ. W. (2013). Learning while governing: Expertise and accountability in the executive branch. University of Chicago Press.
16.
GlennyL. A. (1959). Autonomy of public colleges: The challenge of coordination. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
17.
GustonD. H.JonesM.BranscombL. M. (1997). The demand for and supply of technical information and analysis in state legislatures. Policy Studies Journal, 25(3), 451–469.
18.
HammondT. H. (1986). Agenda control, organizational structure, and bureaucratic politics. American Journal of Political Science, 30(2), 379–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111102
19.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the New Millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
20.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
21.
HicklinA.MeierK. J. (2008). Race, structure, and state governments: The politics of higher education diversity. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 851–860. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381608080808
22.
HillmanN. W.TandbergD. A.SponslerB. A. (2015). Public policy and higher education: Strategies for framing a research agenda. ASHE Higher Education Report, 41(2), 1–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20020
23.
HirdJ. A. (2005). Policy analysis for what? The effectiveness of nonpartisan policy research organizations. Policy Studies Journal, 33(1), 83–105.
24.
HuttonD. G.BaumeisterR. F. (1992). Self-awareness and attitude change: Seeing oneself on the central route to persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181010
25.
JenningsF. J. (2019). An uninformed electorate: identity-motivated elaboration, partisan cues, and learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(5), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1679385
26.
JonesB. D. (2001). Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance. University of Chicago Press.
27.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. University of Chicago Press.
KitchenP. J.KerrG.SchultzD. E.McCollR.PalsH. (2014). The elaboration likelihood model: Review, critique, and research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2033–2050. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-12-2011-0776
LoftisM. W.MortensenP. B. (2020). Collaborating with the machines: A hybrid method for classifying policy documents. Policy Studies Journal, 48(1), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12245
33.
MacDonaldJ. A.FrankoW. W. (2007). Bureaucratic capacity and bureaucratic discretion: Does congress tie policy authority to performance?American Politics Research, 35(6), 790–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x07301654
MandinachE. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667064
36.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961840
37.
MayhewD. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.
MayP. J.WorkmanS.JonesB. D. (2008). Organizing attention: Responses of the bureaucracy to agenda disruption. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 517–541. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun015
40.
McCubbinsM. D.SchwartzT. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110792
41.
McGuinnessA. C. (2003). ECS state notes: Models of postsecondary education coordination and governance in the states. Education Commission of the States.
42.
MillettJ. D. (1984). Conflict in higher education: State government coordination versus institutional independence (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
43.
MoeT. M. (1995). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In WilliamsonO. E. (Ed.), Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 116–153). Oxford University Press.
NessE. C. (2010). The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 1–49). Springer.
46.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
RochefortD. A.CobbR. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. University Press of Kansas.
49.
SabatierP.WhitemanD. (1985). Legislative decision making and substantive policy information: Models of information flow. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10(3), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/440038
ShorB.McCartyN. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000153
52.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
SpillaneJ. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1086/663283
55.
SquireP. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The Squire index revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(2), 211–227.
WorkmanS. (2015). The dynamics of bureaucracy in the U.S. Government: How Congress and federal agencies process information and solve problems. Cambridge University Press.
59.
WorkmanS.ShafranJ.BarkT. (2017). Problem definition and information provision by federal bureaucrats. Cognitive Systems Research, 43, 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.11.002
