I explore the potential impact of rulemakers’ professional experience on the efficiency of rulemaking by U.S. federal agencies. I highlight two types of professional experience rulemakers may have—inside experience gathered by working in the federal government, if not the same agency, and outside experience gained before entering the civil service or between stints in government. I discuss several plausible mechanisms through which inside and outside experience may affect rulemaking efficiency. Using data combining rulemakers’ career backgrounds with rulemaking life-cycles from 1999 to 2023, I show that outside experience, and not inside experience, is associated with two measures of rulemaking efficiency: a higher likelihood for proposed rules to be promulgated as final and a lower likelihood of unanticipated events—extensions of public comment periods, other delays to the rulemaking timetable, and the withdrawal of rules already issued.
AlonsoP.LewisG. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31(4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740122064992.
2.
BoltonA. (2022). Gridlock, bureaucratic control, and nonstatutory policymaking in congress. American Journal of Political Science, 66(1), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12621
3.
CarpenterD.Judge-LordD.LibgoberB.RashinS. (2020). Data and methods for analyzing special interest influence in rulemaking. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 9(3), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-020-00094-w
4.
ChoY. J.LewisG. B. (2012). Turnover intention and turnover behavior: Implications for retaining federal employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x11408701
5.
DaleyD. (1987). Merit pay enters with a whimper: The initial federal civil service reform experience. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 7(2), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x8700700206
6.
DohertyK. M.LewisD. E.LimbockerS. (2019). Presidential control and turnover in regulatory personnel. Administration and Society, 51(10), 1606–1630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719875458
7.
DwidarM. A. (2022). Diverse lobbying coalitions and influence in notice-and-comment rulemaking. Policy Studies Journal, 50(1), 199–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12431
8.
FrankS. A.LewisG. B. (2004). Government employees: Working hard or hardly working?The American Review of Public Administration, 34(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074003258823
9.
GailmardS.PattyJ. W. (2013). Learning while governing: Expertise and accountability in the executive branch. University of Chicago Press.
10.
GoldenM. M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024380
11.
JenningsJ.NagelJ. C. (2020). Federal workforce statistics sources: OPM and OMB. Congressional Research Service.
12.
LeeK.YouH. Y. (2023). Bureaucratic revolving doors and interest group participation in policy making. Journal of Politics, 85(2), 701–717. https://doi.org/10.1086/722340.
13.
LeeS.FernandezS.ChangC. (2018). Job scarcity and voluntary turnover in the us federal bureaucracy. Public Personnel Management, 47(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017732798
McCubbinsM. D.NollR. G.WeingastB. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3(2), 243–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036930.
17.
McCubbinsM. D.NollR. G.WeingastB. R. (1999). The political origins of the Administrative Procedure Act. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15(1), 180–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/15.1.180.
18.
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
19.
McGarityT. O. (1991). Some thoughts on deossifying the rulemaking process. Duke Law Journal, 41(6), 1385. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372818
20.
McGrathR. J. (2013). Congressional oversight hearings and policy control. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 38(3), 349–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12018
21.
MichaelsJ. D. (2017). The American deep state. The Notre Dame Law Review, 93(4), 1653–1670.
22.
MoeT. M. (1985). The politicized presidency. The new direction in American politics, 235(238), 244–263.
23.
NelsonD.YackeeS. W. (2012). Lobbying coalitions and government policy change: An analysis of federal agency rulemaking. Journal of Politics, 74(2), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381611001599.
24.
PearceJ. L.PerryJ. L. (1983). Federal merit pay: A longitudinal analysis (pp. 315–325). Public administration review.
25.
PierceR. J. (1995). Seven ways to deossify agency rulemaking. Administrative Law Review, 47(winter), 59–93.
26.
PotterR. A. (2017). Slow-rolling, fast-tracking, and the pace of bureaucratic decisions in rulemaking. The Journal of Politics, 79(3), 841–855. https://doi.org/10.1086/690614
27.
PotterR. A. (2019). Bending the rules: Procedural politicking in the bureaucracy. University of Chicago Press.
28.
QuińonesM. A.FordJ. K.TeachoutM. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 887–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01785.x
29.
RitchieM. N. (2018). Back-channel representation: A study of the strategic communication of senators with the US Department of Labor. Journal of Politics, 80(1), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1086/694395.
30.
SalisburyR. H.ShepsleK. A. (1981). US congressman as enterprise. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 6(4), 559–576. https://doi.org/10.2307/439385.
31.
Singer-VineJ. (2017). We’re sharing a vast trove of federal payroll records. BuzzFeed News.
32.
TeodoroM. P. (2011). Bureaucratic ambition: Careers, motives, and the innovative administrator. JHU Press.
33.
YackeeJ. W.YackeeS. W. (2010). Administrative procedures and bureaucratic performance: Is federal rule-making “ossified”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup011
34.
YackeeS. W. (2006). Sweet-talking the fourth branch: The influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui042
35.
YackeeS. W. (2012). The politics of ex parte lobbying: Pre-proposal agenda building and blocking during agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur061
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
