4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Who Polices the Administrative State?

      American Political Science Review
      Cambridge University Press (CUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Scholarship on oversight of the bureaucracy typically conceives of legislatures as unitary actors. But most oversight is conducted by individual legislators who contact agencies directly. I acquire the correspondence logs of 16 bureaucratic agencies and re-evaluate the conventional proposition that ideological disagreement drives oversight. I identify the effect of this disagreement by exploiting the transition from George Bush to Barack Obama, which shifted the ideological orientation of agencies through turnover in agency personnel. Contrary to existing research, I find ideological conflict has a negligible effect on oversight, whereas committee roles and narrow district interests are primary drivers. The findings may indicate that absent incentives induced by public auditing, legislator behavior is driven by policy valence concerns rather than ideology. The results further suggest collective action in Congress may pose greater obstacles to bureaucratic oversight than previously thought.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts

            Politics and political conflict often occur in the written and spoken word. Scholars have long recognized this, but the massive costs of analyzing even moderately sized collections of texts have hindered their use in political science research. Here lies the promise of automated text analysis: it substantially reduces the costs of analyzing large collections of text. We provide a guide to this exciting new area of research and show how, in many instances, the methods have already obtained part of their promise. But there are pitfalls to using automated methods—they are no substitute for careful thought and close reading and require extensive and problem-specific validation. We survey a wide range of new methods, provide guidance on how to validate the output of the models, and clarify misconceptions and errors in the literature. To conclude, we argue that for automated text methods to become a standard tool for political scientists, methodologists must contribute new methods and new methods of validation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Delegating Powers

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Political Science Review
                Am Polit Sci Rev
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                0003-0554
                1537-5943
                November 2018
                September 17 2018
                November 2018
                : 112
                : 4
                : 874-890
                Article
                10.1017/S0003055418000497
                2fb5fabc-d8ac-421c-884e-12a91a88b1ff
                © 2018

                https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

                https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article