Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:08:29.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Adaptive Model of Bureaucratic Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Jonathan Bendor  and
Terry M. Moe
Jonathan Bendor
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Terry M. Moe
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article we outline a new framework for the formal analysis of bureaucratic politics. It departs from standard neoclassical approaches, notably those of Niskanen (1971) and Peltzman (1976), in several important respects. First our approach explicitly models a system of three-way interaction among bureaus, politicians, and interest groups. Second, it allows for institutional features of each type of participant. Third, it is a model of dynamic process. Fourth, participants make choices adoptively rather than optimizing. Fifth, participants are only minimally informed.

The result is a dynamic model of adaptive behavior, very much in the spirit of Simon's (1947) behavioral tradition, that offers a new perspective on political control, bureaucratic power, and the “intelligence of democracy.”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 755 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aberbach, J., & Rockman, B. Clashing beliefs within the executive branch: The Nixon administration bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 1976, 70, 456–468.10.2307/1959650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R. Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Bernstein, M. Regulating business by independent commission. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1955.10.1515/9781400878789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braybrooke, D., & Lindblom, C. A strategy of decision. New York: Free Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Cater, D. Power in Washington. New York: Random House, 1964.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. The power of parallel thinking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1981, 2, 285–306.10.1016/0167-2681(81)90011-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. Conflict and complexity: Goal diversity and organizational search effectiveness. American Political Science Review, 1984, 78, 435–451.10.2307/1963374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M., & Axelrod, R. Coping with complexity: The adaptive value of changing utilities. American Economic Review, 1984, 74, 30–42.Google Scholar
Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 1–25.10.2307/2392088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crecine, J. P. Governmental problem-solving. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.Google Scholar
Cyert, R., & March, J. G. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. Polyarchy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1974.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M., & Noll, R. Voters, bureaucrats, and legislators: A rational choice perspective on the growth of bureaucracy. Journal of Public Economics, 1978, 9, 239–253.10.1016/0047-2727(78)90045-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. L. The political process: Executive bureau-legislative committee relations. New York: Random House, 1955.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. The Marasmus of the ICC: The commission, the railroads, and the public interest. Yale Law Journal, 1952, 614, 467–509.10.2307/793586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, M. Federalism, redundancy, and system reliability. Publius, 1973, 3, 173–196.10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a038278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, C., & March, J. Introduction to models in the social sciences. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D., & March, J. A model of adaptive search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1982, 2, 307–333.10.1016/0167-2681(81)90012-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 1959, 10, 79–88.10.2307/973677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. The intelligence of democracy. New York: Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Long, N. Power and administration. Public Administration Review, 1949, 9, 257–264.10.2307/972337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, T. The end of liberalism. New York: Norton, 1969.Google Scholar
March, J. G., & Simon, H. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M., & Schwartz, T. Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 1984, 28, 165–179.10.2307/2110792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migue, J., & Belanger, G. Toward a general theory of managerial discretion. Public Choice, 1974, 17, 27–43.10.1007/BF01718995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G., & Moe, T. M. Bureaucrats, legislators and the size of government. American Political Science Review, 1983, 77, 297–322.10.2307/1958917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W. Representative bureaucracy. New York: Aldine-Atherton, 1971.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W. Bureaucrats and politicians. Journal of Law and Economics, 1975, 18, 617–644.10.1086/466829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Padgett, J. Bounded rationality in budgetary research. American Political Science Review, 1980, 74, 354–372.10.2307/1960632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltzman, S. Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 1976, 19, 211–240.10.1086/466865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. Theories of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 1974, 52, 335–358.10.2307/3003113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, P. Industry influence in federal regulatory agencies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981.10.1515/9781400854318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rich, E. Artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K., & Weingast, B. Political preferences for the pork barrel: A generalization. American Journal of Political Science, 1981, 25, 96–111.10.2307/2110914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1947.Google Scholar
Simon, H., Smithburg, D., & Thompson, V. Public administration. New York: Knopf, 1950.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics, 1971, 2, 3–21.Google Scholar
Weingast, B. A principal-agent perspective on congressional-bureaucratic relations. Presented at the Fifth Carnegie Conference on Political Economy, Carnegie-Mellon University, June, 1983.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. The politics of regulation. New York: Basic Books, 1980.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.