Extending transaction cost theories of agency design, the author develops a theory about why congressional coalitions vary the difficulty of influencing the policy decisions of bureaucratic agencies. He assesses the theory by examining the transaction costs that congressional coalitions imposed on actors seeking to influence agency decisions in landmark laws enacted by the U.S. Congress from 1947 to 1992. The findings stress the need to consider policy disagreement between congressional coalitions and both congressional committees and the president, as well as policy agreement between committees and the president, in understanding how difficult congressional coalitions make it to influence agencies' policy decisions.
Aberbach, Joel D.1990. Keeping a watchful eye: The politics of congressional oversight. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
2.
Arnold, R. Douglas.1979. Congress and the bureaucracy: A theory of influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
Bawn, Kathleen.1997. Choosing strategies to control the bureaucracy: Statutory constraints, oversight, and the committee system. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization13: 101-26.
4.
Epstein, David, and Sharyn O'Halloran .1999. Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. New York: University of Cambridge Press.
5.
———. 2001. Legislative organization under separate powers. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization17:373-96.
6.
Ferejohn, John, and Charles Shipan.1990. Congressional influence on bureaucracy . Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization6:1-20.
7.
Friedrich, Robert.1982. In defense of mulitplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science26:797-833.
8.
Horn, Murray J., and Kenneth A. Shepsle .1989. Commentary on “Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies”: Administrative process and organizational form as legislative responses to agency costs. Virginia Law Review75:499-508.
9.
Huber, John D., and Charles R. Shipan .2000. The costs of control: Legislatures and statutory control of the bureaucracy. Legislative Studies Quarterly25:25-52.
10.
———. 2002. Deliberate discretion: The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Huber, John D., Charles R. Shipan, and Madelain Pfahler .2001. Legislators and statutory control of the bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science45:330-45.
12.
Kerwin, Cornelius M.2003. Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. 3rd ed. Washington, DC : Cornell Quarterly Press.
13.
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.
14.
McCubbins, Mathew D., Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast .1989. Structure and process, politics and policy: Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies . Virginia Law Review75:431-82.
15.
McCubbins, Mathew D., and Thomas Schwartz .1984. Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science2:165-79.
16.
Mayhew, David.1991. Divided we govern: Party control, law-making, and investigations, 1946-1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
Meier, Kenneth J.2000. Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
18.
Moe, Terry M.1989. The politics of bureaucratic structure. In Can the government govern? ed. John E. Chubb and Paul E. Peterson.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19.
Ogul, Morris S.1976. Congress oversees the bureaucracy: Studies in legislative supervision. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
20.
Poole, Keith T.1998. Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science42:954-93.
21.
Potoski, Matthew.1999. Managing uncertainty through bureaucratic design: Administrative procedures and state air pollution control agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory9:623-39.
22.
Rothenberg, Lawrence S.1994. Regulation, organizations, and politics: Motor freight policy at the Interstate Commerce Commission. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
23.
Shipan, Charles R.2004. Regulatory regimes, agency actions, and the conditional nature of congressional influence. American Political Science Review98:467-80.
24.
Stein, Robert M., and Kenneth M. Bickers .1995. Perpetuating the pork barrel: Policy subsystems and American democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Weingast, Barry R., and Mark J. Moran.1983. Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy91:765-800.
26.
Whitford, Andrew B.2005. The pursuit of political control by multiple principals . Journal of Politics67:29-49.
27.
Wood, B. Dan.1988. Principals, bureaucrats, and responsiveness in clean air enforcements. American Political Science Review82:213-34.
28.
———. 1990. Does politics make a difference at the EEOC?American Journal of Political Science34:503-30.
29.
Wood, B. Dan, and John Bohte.2004. Political transaction costs and the politics of administrative design. Journal of Politics66:176-202.
30.
Wood, B. Dan, and Richard W. Waterman .1994. Bureaucratic dynamics: The role of bureaucracy in a democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
