Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-22T19:12:22.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bureaucratic Capacity, Delegation, and Political Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2004

JOHN D. HUBER  and
NOLAN McCARTY
JOHN D. HUBER
Affiliation:
Columbia University
NOLAN McCARTY
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We analyze a model of delegation and policymaking in polities where bureaucratic capacity is low. Our analysis suggests that low bureaucratic capacity diminishes incentives for bureaucrats to comply with legislation, making it more difficult for politicians to induce bureaucrats to take actions that politicians desire. Consequently, when bureaucratic capacity is low, standard principles in the theoretical literature on delegation no longer hold. We also use the model to examine the issue of political reform in polities with low bureaucratic capacity. The model indicates that politicians in such polities will be trapped in a situation whereby they have little incentive to undertake reforms of either the bureaucracy or other institutions (such as courts) that are crucial for successful policymaking.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , August 2004 , pp. 481 - 494
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

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

Bawn Kathleen. 1995 “Political Control versus Expertise: Congressional Choice About Administration Procedures.” American Political Science Review 89 (1): 62– 73.Google Scholar
Bendor Jonathan, and Adam Meirowitz. 2004 “Spatial Models of Delegation.” American Political Science Review. 98 (2): 293– 310.Google Scholar
Besley Timothy, and John McLaren. 1993 “Taxes and Bribery: The Role of Wage Incentives.” Economic Journal 103: 119– 41.Google Scholar
Carpenter Daniel. 2001 The Forging of Bureaucratic Capacity: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chang Kelly, David E. Lewis, and Nolan McCarty. 2000 “The Tenure of Political Appointees.” Paper presented at the 2000 American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
Epstein David, and Sharyn O'Halloran. 1999 Delegating Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Evans Peter, and James Rauch. 1999 “Bureaucracy and Growth: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of ‘Weberian’ State Structures on Economic Growth.” American Sociological Review 64: 748– 65.Google Scholar
Geddes Barbara. 1990 “Building ‘State’ Autonomy in Brazil, 1930– 64.” Comparative Politics 22 (2): 217– 35.Google Scholar
Geddes Barbara. 1994 Politician's Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huber John D., and Charles Shipan. 2002 Deliberate Discretion? Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCourt Willy, and Nazar Sola. 1999 “Using Training to Promote Civil Service Reform: A Tanzanian Local Government Case Study.” Public Administration and Development 19: 63– 75.Google Scholar
McCubbins Mathew D., Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast. 1987 “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (2): 243– 77.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.