We present a formal model explaining that US presidents strategically unionize federal employees to reduce bureaucratic turnover and ‘anchor’ the ideological composition of like-minded agency workforces. To test our model’s predictions, we advance a method of estimating bureaucratic ideology via the campaign contributions of federal employees; we then use these bureaucratic ideal point estimates in a comprehensive empirical test of our model. Consistent with our model’s predictions, our empirical tests find that federal employee unionization stifles agency turnover, suppresses ideological volatility when the president’s partisanship changes, and occurs more frequently in agencies ideologically proximate to the president.
AberbachJ (1990) Keeping a Watchful Eye: The Politics of Congressional Oversight. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
2.
AcsACameronC (2011) Presidents and the politics of centralized control: regulatory auditing at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Presented at the2011 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
3.
American Federation of Government Employees (2013) AFGE at a glance. Available at: http://www.afge.org/?Page=AboutUS (Accessed November 1, 2013).
4.
AnsolabehereSde FigueiredoJMSnyderJMJr (2003) Why is there so little money in U.S. politics. Journal of Economic Perspectives17(1): 105–130.
5.
AnziaSF (2011) Election timing and the electoral influence of interest groups. Journal of Politics73(2): 412–427.
BerryCRGersenJE (2011) Agency design and distributive politics. Working Paper.
9.
BertelliAMGroseCR (2007) Agreeable administrators? The public positions of cabinet secretaries and presidents. Presidential Studies Quarterly37(2): 228–247.
10.
BertelliAMGroseCR (2009) Secretaries of pork? A new theory of distributive politics. Journal of Politics71(3): 926–945.
11.
BertelliAMGroseCR (2011) The lengthened shadow of another institution? Ideal point estimates for the Executive Branch and Congress. American Journal of Political Science55(4): 767–781.
12.
BertelliAMLewisDE (2013) Policy influence, agency-specific expertise, and exit in the federal service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory23(2): 223–245.
13.
BlaisABlakeDEDionS (1997) Governments, Parties, and Public Sector Employees. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
14.
BonicaA (2013) Database on ideology, money in politics, and elections: public version 1.0 [Computer file]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. Available at: http://data.stanford.edu/dime (Accessed November 20, 2013).
15.
BrennerADayBNessI (eds) (2009) The Encyclopedia of Strikes in American History. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
16.
CayerNJ (1996) Public Personnel Administration in the United States. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
17.
ChenJ (2010) Estimating Agency Ideal Points Using Bureaucratic Campaign Contributions. Paper Presented at the 2010 Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC.
18.
ClintonJDBertelliAGroseCR. (2012) Separated powers in the United States: the ideology of agencies, presidents, and congress. American Journal of Political Science56(2): 341–354.
19.
ClintonJDLewisDE (2008) Expert opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Political Analysis16(1): 3–20.
20.
De FigueiredoR (2002) Electoral competition, political uncertainty, and policy insulation. American Political Science Review96(2): 321–333.
EpsteinDO’HalloranS (1999) Delegating Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
EskridgeWNFerejohnJ (1992) The article I, section 7 game. Georgetown Law Journal80(3): 523–64.
24.
FiorinaMP (1985) Group concentration and the delegation of legislative authority. In: NollR (ed.) Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 175–197.
25.
FuchsEScott AdlerEMitchellLA (2000) Win, place, show: public opinion polls and campaign contributions in a New York city election. Urban Affairs Review35(4): 479–501.
26.
FrazierHBIII (1985) Chapter 25: federal employment. In: HelsbyRDTenerJLefkowitzJ (eds) The Evolving Process–Collective Negotiations in Public Employment. Fort Washington, PA: Labor Relations Press, pp. 483–510.
27.
FreemanRBIchniowskiC (eds) (1988) When Public Sector Workers Unionize. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
GailmardSPattyJW (2007) Slackers and zealots: civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. American Journal of Political Science51(4): 873–899.
29.
GimpelJGLeeFEPearson-MerkowitzS (2008) The check is in the mail: interdistrict funding flows in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science52(2): 373–394.
30.
HowellWG (2003) Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
HowellWGLewisDE (2002) Agencies by presidential design. Journal of Politics64(4): 1095–1114.
32.
HuberJDShipanCR (2002) Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
JohnsonRJLibecapGD (1994) The Federal Civil Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
LewisDE (2007) Testing Pendleton’s premise. Journal of Politics69(4): 1073–1088.
36.
LewisDE (2008) The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
MacDonaldJA (2010) Limitation riders and congressional influence over bureaucratic policy decisions. American Political Science Review104(4): 766-782.
38.
McCartyNPooleKTRosenthalH (2006) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
McCubbinsMDNollRGWeingastBR (1987) Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization3(2): 243–277.
40.
McCubbinsMDSchwartzT (1984) Congressional oversight overlooked: police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science28(1): 165–179.
41.
MoeTM (1987) An assessment of the positive theory of ‘congressional dominance’. Legislative Studies Quarterly12(4): 475-520.
42.
MoeTM (1989) The politics of bureaucratic structure. In: ChubbJEPetersonPE (eds) Can the Government Govern?Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
43.
MoeTM (1993) Presidents, institutions, and theory. In: EdwardsGCIIIKesselJHRockmanBA (eds) Researching the Presidency: Vital Questions, New Approaches. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
44.
MoeTM (1997) The positive theory of public bureaucracy. In: MuellerD (ed.) Handbook of Public Choice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
45.
MoeTM (2006) Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization22(1): 1–29.
46.
MoeTM (2009) Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of Political Science53(1): 156–174.
47.
MoeTM (2011) Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
48.
MoeTMHowellWH (1999) The presidential power of unilateral action. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization15(1): 132–179.
49.
MutzDC (1995) Effect of horse-race coverage on campaign-coffers: strategic contributing in presidential primaries. Journal of Politics57(4): 1015–1042.
50.
NathanRP (1975) The Plot that Failed: Nixon and the Administrative Presidency. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
51.
NiskanenWA (1975) Bureaucrats and politicians. Journal of Law and Economics18(3): 617–643.
52.
NixonDC (2004) Separation of powers and appointee ideology. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization20(2): 438–457.
53.
RiccucciNM (2011) Public sector labor relations scholarship: is there a “there,” there?Public Administration Review71(2): 203–209.
54.
SlaterJ (2004) Homeland security vs. workers’ rights? What the federal government should learn from history and experience, and why. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law6: 295–356.
55.
SnyderSWeingastBR (2000) The American system of shared powers: the president, congress, and the NLRB. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization16(2): 269–305.
ThompsonJR (2007) Federal labor-management relations reform under Bush: enlightened management or quest for control?Review of Public Personnel Administration27(2): 105–124.
58.
TroyL (1994) The New Unionism in the New Society. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
59.
TullockG (1965) The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press.
60.
WeingastBMoranMJ (1983) Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the federal trade commission. Journal of Political Economy91(5): 765–800.
61.
WellingtonHHWinterRK (1971) The Unions and the Cities. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
