This study examines how media coverage impacts the interaction between industries and regulatory agencies in the United States. We examine Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rulemaking and airline industry comments during 71 notice and comment periods between 1996 and 2005. This study’s findings shed light on how external forces such as media coverage create conditions in which organized industry interests can impact regulatory outcomes. Specifically, this study’s findings suggest that the amount of media coverage received by the FAA is associated with the level of firm participation in the notice and comment process. In addition, the results indicate that greater media scrutiny is associated with longer comment periods as well as an increased likelihood of proposed rules being modified.
BallaS. J. (1998). Administrative procedures and political control of the Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 92, 663-673.
2.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and Instabilities in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BonardiJ. P.HolburnG. L. F.VandenberghR. G. (2006). Nonmarket strategy performance: Evidence from U.S. electric utilities. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1209-1228.
4.
Box-SteffensmeirJ. M.JonesB. J. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BoyneG. A.MeierK. J. (2009). Environmental turbulence, organizational stability, and public service performance. Administration & Society, 40, 799-824.
6.
CareyJ.FrancisT. (2009, January26). Business’ 10 biggest battles: A new era of regulation. Business Week, 52-54.
7.
CarpenterD. P. (2002). Groups, the media agency waiting costs, and FDA drug approval. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 490-505.
8.
CarrollC. E.McCombsM. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 38-46.
9.
CavazosD. (2007). Capturing the regulatory rulemaking process: How historical antecedents of U.S. regulatory agencies impact industry conditions. International Journal of Organization Analysis, 15, 231-250.
10.
DaleyD. M. (2007). Citizen groups and scientific decision making: Does public participation influence environmental outcomes?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 349-368.
11.
DavisP.WestK. (2009). What do public values mean for public action? Putting public values in their plural place. American Review of Public Administration, 39, 602-618.
12.
DeephouseD. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 1091-1112.
13.
ElversH.JandrigB.GrummichK.TannerC. (2008). Mobile phones and health: Media coverage study of German newspapers on possible adverse health effects of mobile phone use. Health, Risk & Society, 11, 165-179.
14.
FurlongS. R. (1997). Interest group influence on rulemaking. Administration and Society, 29, 325-347.
15.
FurlongS. R.KerwinC. (2005). Interest group participation in rulemaking: A decade of change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 353-370.
16.
GoldenM. M. (1998). Interest groups in the rulemaking process: Who participates? Who gets heard?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 245-270.
17.
GoodsteinJ. D.VelamuriR. S. (2009). States, power, legitimacy and maintaining institutional control: The private sector telecommunication services in Zimbabwe. Organization Studies, 30, 489-508.
18.
GreenwoodR.DiazA. M.LiX. S.LorenteJ. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21, 521-539.
19.
HargadonA. B.DouglasJ. Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476-501.
20.
HillmanA.KeimG.SchulerD. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30, 837-857.
21.
HoffmanA. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism in the U.S Chemical Industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 351-371.
22.
HoffmanA.OcasioW. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12, 414-434.
23.
HoffmanA.OcasioW. (2002). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science, 12, 414-434.
24.
JewellC.BeroL. (2007). Public participation and claims making: Evidence utilization and divergent policy frames in California’s ergonomics rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research, 17, 625-650.
25.
KapucuN.Van WartM. (2006). The evolving role of the public sector in managing catastrophic disasters: Lessons learned. Administration & Society, 38, 279-308.
26.
KempK. W. (1984). Accidents, scandals and political support for regulatory agencies. Journal of Politics, 46, 401-427.
27.
KerwinK. M.FurlongS. R. (1992). Time and rulemaking: An empirical test of theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 113-138.
28.
KerwinK. M. (2003). Rulemaking: How government agencies write laws and make policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
29.
KingM. D.HavemanH. A. (2008) Antislavery in America: The press, the pulpit, and the rise of antislavery societies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 492-528.
30.
MazmanianD. A.SabatierP. A. (1989). Implementation and public policy with a new postscript. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
31.
McCubbinsM. D.NollR. G.WeingastB. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 3, 243-277.
32.
McCubbinsM. D.NollR. G.WeingastB. R. (1990). Positive and normative models of procedural rights: An integrative approach to administrative procedures. Journal of Law, economics and organization, 6, 307-332.
33.
MeirK. J.O’TooleJ. L.(2008). Management theory and Occam’s razor: How public organizations buffer the environment. Administration & Society, 39, 931-958.
34.
NaughtonK.SchmidC.YackeeS. W.ZhanX. (2009). Understanding commenter influence during agency rule development. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 258-277.
35.
OliverC. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.
36.
OlsonM. K. (1995). Regulatory agency discretion among competing industries: Inside The FDA. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 11, 379-405.
37.
PetrovaM. (2008). Inequality and media capture. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 183-212.
38.
PollinsB. (1996). Global political order, economic change, and armed conflict: Coevolving Systems and the use of force. American Political Science Review, 90, 103-117.
39.
PollockT. G.RindovaV. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 831-842.
40.
PollockT. G.RindovaV. P.MaggittiP. G. (2008). Market watch: Information and availability cascades among the media and investors in the U.S. IPO market. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 335-358.
41.
RingP. S.BigleyG. A.D’AunnoT.KhannaT. (2005). Perspectives on how governments matter, introduction to special topic forum. Academy of Management Review, 30, 308-320.
42.
SabatierP.A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (1993). The study of public policy processes. In SmithJenkins H. C.SabatierP. A (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Washington, DC: Westview.
43.
SchulerD. A. (1996). Corporate political strategy and foreign competition: The case of the steel industry. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 720-737.
44.
ScottR. (2002). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
45.
SeneseP. D. (1997). Costs and demands: International sources of dispute challenges and reciprocation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 407-427.
46.
ShapiroS. (2007, July/August). The role of procedural control in OSHA’s ergonomics rulemaking. Public Administration Review, 688-701.
47.
ShipanC. R. (2004). Regulatory regimes, agency actions, and the conditional nature of Congressional influence. American Political Science Review, 98, 467-480.
48.
SpencerJ. W.MurthaT. P.LenwayS. A. (2005). How governments matter to new industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 30, 321-337.
49.
SpriggsJames F.WahlbeckP. J. (1995). Calling it quits: Strategic retirement on the federal courts of appeals, 1893-1991. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 573-597.
UscinskiJ. E. (2009). When does the public’s issue agenda affect the media’s issue agenda (and vice versa)? Developing a framework for media-public influence. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 796-815.
52.
Van WartM.BermanE. (1999). Contemporary public sector productivity values: Narrower scope, tougher standards, and new rules of the game. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22, 326-347.
53.
WeingastB.MoranM. (1983). Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the federal trade commission. Journal of Political Economy, 91, 765-800.
54.
WestW. (2005). Administrative rulemaking: An old and emerging literature. Public Administration Review, 65, 655-668.
55.
WilsonJ. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation. New York: Basic Books.
56.
WoodsN. D. (2005). Interest group influence on state administrative rule making: The impact of rule review. American Review of Public Administration, 35, 402-413.
57.
YackeeS. W. (2006). Assessing inter-institutional attention to and influence on government regulations. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 723-744.
58.
YackeeJ. W.YackeeS. W. (2006). A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the U.S. bureaucracy. Journal of Politics, 68, 128-139.
