In the summer 2006 edition of State Politics and Policy Quarterly, Michael Baranowski and Donald Gross examined two methods of measuring influence over state agency activities: freestanding versus paired comparison. Their analysis led them to conclude that the paired-comparison measures might be theoretically superior, but are often impractical. Using the American State Administrator Project (ASAP) surveys, we supplement Baranowski and Gross's analysis by identifying conditions that sometimes make freestanding instruments superior measures and, at other times, paired comparisons both superior and practical to use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbneyGlennLauthThomas P.. 1983. The Governor as Chief Administrator. Public Administration Review43 (1): 40–9.
2.
AbneyGlennLauthThomas P.. 1998. The End of Executive Dominance in State Appropriations. Public Administration Review58 (5): 388–94.
3.
BaranowskiMichaelGrossDonald A.. 2006. “Influence over State Agency Activities: A Test of Two Survey-Based Measures.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly6: 220–38.
4.
BeyleThad L.1999. Governors. In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 7th ed., eds. GrayVirginiaHansonRussell L.JacobHerbert. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
5.
BowlingCynthia J.WrightDeil S.. 1998. Change and Continuity in State Administration: Administrative Leadership Across Four Decades. Public Administration Review58 (5): 429–44.
6.
BrudneyJeffrey L.Ted HerbertF.. 1987. “State Agencies and Their Environments: Examining the Influence of Important External Actors.” Journal of Politics49: 186–206.
7.
BurkeBrendanWrightDeil S.. 2003. “Separation of Powers in the American States: Administrators' Alternative Perceptions of Institutional Influence over Agency Direction in the 1980s and 1990s.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
8.
ChoChung-LaeWrightDeil S.. 2004. “The Devolution Revolution in Intergovernmental Relations in the 1990: Changes in Cooperative and Coercive State-National Relations as Perceived by State Administrators.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14: 447–68.
9.
Council of State Governments.1998. The Book of the States, 1998-99. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.
10.
CroninThomas. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
DometriusNelson C.2002. “Gubernatorial Popularity and Administrative Influence.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly2: 251–67.
12.
DometriusNelson C.1979. “Measuring Gubernatorial Power.” Journal of Politics41: 589–610.
13.
DownsAnthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
14.
FreemanJ. Leiper. 1955. The Political Process: Executive Bureau-Legislative Committee Relations. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
15.
FriedrichCarl J.1950. Constitutional Government and Democracy. New York, NY: Ginn and Company.
16.
HebertF. TedBrudneyJeffrey L.WrightDeil S.. 1983. “Gubernatorial Influence and State Bureaucracy.” American Politics Quarterly11: 243–64.
17.
HecloHugh. 1978. Issue Networks in the Executive Establishment. In The New American Political System, ed. KingAnthony. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
18.
KelleherChristine A.Webb YackeeSusan. 2006. “Who's Whispering in Your Ear? Measuring the Influence of Third Parties Over State Agency Decisions.” Political Research Quarterly59: 629–43.
19.
KingJames D.2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly25: 327–59.
20.
KingdonJohn. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed.New York, NY: Longman.
21.
MillerCheryl M.1987. “State Administrator Perceptions of the Policy Influence of Other Actors: Is Less Better?” Public Administration Review47: 239–45.
22.
MillerCheryl M.WrightDeil S.. 2002. “The Politics-Administration Continuum: Positive-Sum Patterns in Balancing Bureaucratic Initiative with Administrative Accountability.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
23.
RipleyRandall B.FranklinGrace A.. 1987. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, 4th ed.Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
24.
RourkeFrancis E.1984. Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
25.
SchneiderSaundra K.JacobyWilliam G.CoggburnJerrell D.. 1997. The Structure of Bureaucratic Decisions in the American States. Public Administration Review57 (3): 240–9.
26.
SigelmanLeeDometriusNelson C.. 1988. “Governors as Chief Administrators: The Linkage Between Formal Powers and Informal Influence.” American Politics Quarterly16: 157–70.
27.
SteinHarold, ed. 1952. Public Administration and Policy Development: A Case Book. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
28.
HornVanCarlE.2006. The State of the States, 4th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
29.
WatermanRichard W.HankC. Jenkins-SmithSilvaCarol L.. 1999. “The Expectations Gap Thesis: Public Attitudes toward and Incumbent President.” Journal of Politics61:944-66.
30.
WatermanRichard W.RouseAmelia. 1999. The Determinants of the Perceptions of Political Control of the Bureaucracy and the Venues of Influence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory9 (4): 527–69.
31.
WrightDeil S.1967. “Executive Leadership in State Administration.” Midwest Journal of Political Science11: 1–26.
32.
WrightDeil S.ChoChung-Lae. 2001. American State Administrators Project (ASAP) Overview: Major Features of the ASAP Surveys 1964-1998. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Odom Institute for Research in Social Science.
