Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:02:13.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Congressional modification of benefit-cost analysis as a vehicle for particularized benefits and a limitation on agency discretion: the case of the federal contract tower program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Russell W. Mills
Russell W. Mills*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Bowling Green State University, 124 Williams Hall, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA
*
Russell W. Mills, PhD, Department of Political Science, Bowling Green State University, 124 Williams Hall, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The literature on Congressional control of the bureaucracy has examined how members of Congress pursue strategies such as oversight, the limitation of discretion in legislation [Moe, T. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. In J. E. Chubb & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), Can the Government Govern? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution); Huber, J. D., & Shipan, C. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion: The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press], and the use of tools such as administrative procedures [McCubbins, M., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: police patrols vs. fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 21(1), 165–179; McCubbins, M., Noll, R., & Weingast, B. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243–277] and limitation riders [MacDonald, J. A. (2010). Limitation riders and congressional influence over bureaucratic policy decisions. American Political Science Review, 104 (November), 766–782] to exert influence over executive agency decision making. One area where Congress has attempted to exert control over agency decision-making is through the legislative modification of one of the most common bureaucratic decision-making tools: benefit-cost analysis (BCA). While scholars have examined political influence in agency regulatory impact analysis BCAs for proposed rules [Shapiro, S., & Morrall III, J. F. (2012). The triumph of regulatory politics. Benefit-cost analysis and political salience. Regulation and Governance, 6(2), 189–206], there has been a lack of examination of Congressional modification of agency BCA processes to justify and protect particularized [Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press] infrastructure projects in their districts. This paper will examine the effect of Congressional control over agency BCA processes to secure particularized benefits by developing an in-depth case study of the Federal Contact Tower Program (FCTP) operated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that examines the political and public management implications of Congress’s limitation of the FAA’s autonomy to operate the FCTP under current benefit-cost guidance. Building upon the literature on particularized benefits and Congressional delegation, the results of this study indicate that members of Congress use BCA processes to insulate infrastructure projects in their districts by restricting the ability of agencies to optimize program effectiveness.

Keywords

agency discretionparticularized benefitstransportation infrastructureCongress
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , 01 December 2013 , pp. 301 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2013

References

Aberbach, J. D. (1990). Keeping a watchful eye: The politics of congressional oversight. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Alston, L. (2005). The case for case studies in political economy. The Political Economist. APSA Newsletter.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. (1979). Congress and the bureaucracy: A theory of influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bertelli, A., & Grose, C. (2009). Secretaries of pork? a new theory of distributive public policy. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 926–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickers, K. N., & Stein, R. M. (1994a). Universalism and the electoral connection: A test and some doubts. Political Research Quarterly, 47, 295.Google Scholar
Bickers, K. N., & Stein, R. M. (1996). The electoral dynamics of the federal pork barrel. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 1300–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, D., & Krause, G. (2011). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copp, D. (1987). The justice and rationale of cost-benefit analysis. Theory and Decision, 23, 65–87.Google Scholar
Cunningham, L., & Eckard, E. W. (1987). US small community air service subsidies: Essential or superfluous?. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 21(3), 255–277.Google Scholar
DelRossi, A., & Inman, R. (1999). Changing the price of pork: The impact of local cost sharing on legislators’ demands for distributive public goods. Journal of Public Economics, 71, 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellig, J., McLaughlin, P. A., & Morrall III, J. F. (2012). Continuity, change, and priorities: The quality and use of regulatory analysis across US administrations. Regulation and Govermance, 7(2), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1999). Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M. (1989). Congress: The keystone of the washington establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built-and what we can do about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25 (3), 344–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. D., & Shipan, C. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion: The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Martin, M. & McIntyre, L. C. (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp. 213–231). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, M. (1998). Discount rates for government investment projects: The economic logic of OMB circular A-94. The Engineering Economist, 43(4), 290–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinzerling, L. (1998). Regulatory costs of mythic proportions, 107 Yale Law Journal.Google Scholar
Jensen, J., & Rodgers, R. (2001). Cumulating the intellectual gold of case study research. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. (1989). OMB budget examiner and the congressional budget process. Public Budgeting and Finance, 9(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelman, S. (1981). Regulating america, regulating sweden: A comparative study of occupational safety and health policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kerwin, C., & Furlong, S. (2011). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. R., & McCubbins, M. D. (1991). The logic of delegation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kochtcheeva, L. V. (2009). Administrative discretion and environmental regulation: Agency substantive rules and court decisions in US air and water quality policies. Review of Policy Research, 26(3), 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, G. (2010). Legislative delegation of authority to bureaucratic agencies. In Durant, R. F. (Ed.), The oxford handbook of american bureaucracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Landau, S., & Weisbrod, G. (2009). Practices for Preparing Airport Improvement Program 4 Benefit-Cost Analyses, ACRP Synthesis of Airport Practice, S03-05, Airport Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board.Google Scholar
Lee, D. B. (2005). Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA. Transport Policy, 7, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, T. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(4), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J. A. (2010). Limitation riders and congressional influence over bureaucratic policy decisions. American Political Science Review, 104 (November), 766–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: the electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M. (1999). Abdication or Delegation? congress, the bureaucracy, and the delegation dilemma. Regulation, 22(2), 30–37.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols vs. fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 21(1), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, M., Noll, R., & Weingast, B. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243–277.Google Scholar
McGarity, T. O. (1991). reinventing regulation: The role of regulatory analysis in the federal bureaucracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
Moe, T. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. In Chubb, J. E. & Peterson, P. E. (Eds.), Can the Government Govern? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
National Air Traffic Controllers Association vs. U.S. Department of Transportation, Jane Garvey. 2011. United States Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit. 16 August.Google Scholar
Porter, T. (1996). The rise of cost-benefit rationality as solution to a political problem of distrust. presented at the Benefit-Cost Analysis Conference May 18.Google Scholar
Posner, E. A. (2001). Controlling agencies with cost-benefit analysis: A positive political theory perspective. University of Chicago Law Review, 68, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, S. M. (2011). Press release. Retrieved from: http://www.pryor.senate.gov/public/index.cfm Google Scholar
Revesz, R., & Livermore, M.A. (2008). Retaking Rationality: How cost-benefit analysis can better protect the environment and our health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (2000). The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(S2), 931–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S., & Morrall III, J. F. (2012). The triumph of regulatory politics. Benefit-cost analysis and political salience. Regulation and Governance, 6(2), 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K., & Weingast, B. R. (1981). Political preferences for the pork barrel: A generalization. Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 96–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2011). Empirically formed regulation. University of Chicago Law Review, 78(4), 1349–1429.Google Scholar
Tomkin, S. L. (1998). Inside OMB: Politics and process in the president’s budget office. M.E. sharpe.Google Scholar
United States Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2012. A Review of the FAA’s Contract Tower Program. 112th Congress. 2nd Session. 18 July.Google Scholar
United States Congress. House of Representatives. Appropriations Committee. 2013. Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill Conference Report.Google Scholar
United States Congressional Research Service. Federal Rulemaking: The Role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 7–5700. June 9, 2009.Google Scholar
United States Congressional Research Service. Proposed Cuts to Air Traffic Control Towers Under Budget Sequestration: Background and Considerations for Congress. R43021. 2013.Google Scholar
United States Contract Tower Association. Annual report 1997. Retrieved from http://www.contracttower.org/annual.html.Google Scholar
United States Contract Tower Association. Annual report 1999. Retrieved from http://www.contracttower.org/annual.html.Google Scholar
United States Contract Tower Association. Annual report 2000. Retrieved from http://www.contracttower.org/annual.html.Google Scholar
United States Contract Tower Association. Annual report 2003. Retrieved from http://www.contracttower.org/annual.html.Google Scholar
United States Contract Tower Association. Annual report 2007. Retrieved from http://www.contracttower.org/annual.html.Google Scholar
United States Contract Tower Association. Annual report 2009. Retrieved from http://www.contracttower.org/annual.html.Google Scholar
United States Contract Tower Association. Annual report 2011. Retrieved from http://www.contracttower.org/annual.html.Google Scholar
United States Department of transportation. Memorandum: FAA’s Contract Tower Program. 1986.Google Scholar
United States Department of Transportation. Economic Analysis Primer:Annual report 2003. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer00.cfm.Google Scholar
United States Department of Transportation Inspector General. Contract Towers: Observations on FAA’s Study of Expanding the Program. Report No. AV-2000-079. April 11, 2000.Google Scholar
United States Department of Transportation Inspector General. Federal Contract Tower Program. Report No. AV-1998-147. >May 18, 1998.May+18,+1998.>Google Scholar
United States Federal Aviation Administration. Benefit-Cost Method for Selecting and Ranking Airport Traffic Control Tower Candidates. FAA Order ASP-75-4. 1975.Google Scholar
United States Federal Aviation Administration. Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers. FAA Report APO-83-2, August 1983.Google Scholar
United States Federal Aviation Administration. Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers. FAA Report APO-90-7, August 1990.Google Scholar
United States Federal Aviation Administration. Memorandum: FAA Contract Tower Benefit-Cost Analysis. April 23, 1992.Google Scholar
United States Federal Aviation Administration. FAA Federal Contract Tower Program Stakeholder Briefing. May 18, 2012.Google Scholar
United States Government Accountability Office. Status of FAA’s Plans to Close and Contract Our Low-Activity Towers. GAO 94-265. September 12, 1994.Google Scholar
United States Government Accountability Office. Highlights of an Expert Panel: The Benefits and Costs of Highway and Transit Investments. GAO 05-423SP. May 2005.Google Scholar
United States Office of Management and Budget. Regulatory analysis. Circular A-4. 2003.Google Scholar
United States Office of Management and Budget. Guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs circular A-94. 1992.Google Scholar
Van Wee, B. (2012). How suitable is cba for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics. Transport Policy, 19, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenbaum, M. (1997). Regulatory process reform from ford to clinton. Regulation, 20(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. W., & Yackee, S. W. (2010). Administrative procedures and bureaucratic performance: Is federal rule-making ossified? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage: London.Google Scholar
Zerbe, R. (2007). An ethical benefit-cost analysis. Working Paper. Northwestern University School of Law.Google Scholar