Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:14:13.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agency policy preferences, congressional letter-marking and the allocation of distributive policy benefits*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2015

Russell W. Mills ,
Nicole Kalaf-Hughes  and
Jason A. MacDonald
Russell W. Mills
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Nicole Kalaf-Hughes
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Jason A. MacDonald
Affiliation:
West Virginia University, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When allocating distributive benefits, bureaucrats must balance their own policy preferences with requests from members of Congress. The elimination of earmarking may provide agency personnel with greater discretion in the allocation of distributive benefits. Using a novel data set of congressional letters written in support of their community’s air traffic control towers, we estimate a model that explores the Federal Aviation Administration’s decision to issue national interest exemptions to continue operations at towers slated for closure as a result of budget sequestration. Our analysis suggests that members of Congress do not enjoy the influence they possessed under earmarking when using a new method, letter-marking, to influence how agencies distribute benefits.

Keywords

aviation policybureaucratic preferencesdistributive policyletter-marking
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 547 - 571
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Previous versions of this paper were presented at the 2015 Structure of Government (SOG) Conference in Jerusalem, Israel, the 2015 Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting and the 2015 Western Political Science Association annual meeting.

References

Arnold, R. D. (1979) Congress and the Bureaucracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. D. (1990) The Logic of Collective Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Balla, S. J., Lawrence, E. D., Maltzman, F. and Sigelman, L. (2002) Partisanship, Blame, Avoidance, and the Distribution of Legislative Pork. American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 515–525.Google Scholar
Berry, C. R., Burden, B. C. and Howell, W. G. (2010) The President and the Distribution of Federal Spending. American Political Science Review 104(4): 783–799.Google Scholar
Bertelli, A. M. and Grose, C. R. (2011) Secretaries of Pork? A New Theory of Distributive Public Policy. Journal of Politics 71(3): 926–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogardus, K. and Laing, K. (2013) Lawmakers Fought FAA Air Tower Closures with Letter-Marking, The Hill, 16 May. http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/300071-lawmakers-fought-air-tower-closures-with-letter-marking- (accessed 22 November 2013).Google Scholar
Brehm, J. and Gates, S. (1997) Working, Shirking and Sabotage. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. and Tullock, G. (1962) The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, D. P. (2001) The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, D. P. and Lewis, D. E. (2004) Political Learning from Rare Events: Poisson Inference, Fiscal Constraints, and the Lifetime of Bureaus. Political Analysis 12: 201–232.Google Scholar
Clinton, J. D., Bertelli, A., Grose, C. R., Lewis, D. E. and Nixon, D. C. (2012) Separated Powers in the United States: The Ideology of Agencies, Presidents, and Congress. American Journal of Political Science 56: 341–354.Google Scholar
Evans, D. (2004) Greasing the Wheels. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Federal Aviation Administration. Federal Contract Tower Notification Letter 2013.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. (1989) Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, S. C. (2011) Politicizing Agency Spending Authority: Lessons from a Bush-Era Scandal. American Political Science Review 105(4): 717–734.Google Scholar
Krause, G. A. (1996) The Institutional Dynamics of Policy Administration: Bureaucratic Influence over Securities Regulation. American Journal of Political Science 40: 1083–1121.Google Scholar
Krause, G. A. (2002) Separated Powers and Institutional Growth in the Presidential and Congressional Branches: Distinguishing Between Short–Run Versus Long–Run Dynamics. Political Research Quarterly 55: 27–57.Google Scholar
Krause, G. A. (2003) Coping with Uncertainty: Analyzing Risk Propensities of SEC Budgetary Decisions, 1949–1997. American Political Science Review 97: 171–188.Google Scholar
Lazarus, J. (2010) Giving the People What They Want? The Distribution of Earmarks in the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 338–353.Google Scholar
Lee, F. (2003) Geographic Politics in the U.S. House of Representatives: Coalition Building and Distribution of Benefits. American Political Science Review 94(1): 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucrats: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. and Bracken, C. C. (2002) Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human Communication Research 28: 587–604.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R. and Zavoina, W. (1975) A Statistical Model for the Analysis of Ordinal Level Dependent Variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 4: 103–120.Google Scholar
Maor, M. (2007) A Scientific Standard and an Agency’s Legal Independence: Which of These Reputation-Protection Mechanisms is Less Susceptible to Political Moves. Public Administration 85(4): 961–978.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Jason A. (2010) Limitation Riders and Congressional Influence over Bureaucratic Policy Decisions. American Political Science Review 104: 766–782.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, K. J. and O’Toole, L. J. Jr. (2001) Managerial Strategies and Behavior in Networks: A Model with Evidence from U.S. Public Education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11: 271–293.Google Scholar
Meier, K. J. and O’Toole, L. J. Jr. (2006) Political Control Versus Bureaucratic Values: Reframing the Debate. Public Administration Review 66: 177–192.Google Scholar
Mills, Russell W. (2013) 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. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 4(3): 301–333.Google Scholar
Nixon, David C. (2004) Separation of Powers and Appointee Ideology. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 20: 438–457.Google Scholar
Nixon, R. (2010) Lawmakers Finance Pet Projects Without Earmarks, New York Times, 27 December.Google Scholar
Nixon, R. (2012) Congress Appears to be Trying to Get Around Earmark Ban, New York Times, 5 February.Google Scholar
O’Toole, L. J. Jr. and Meier, K. J. (1999) Modeling the Impact of Public Management: Implications of Structural Context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9: 505–526.Google Scholar
Poole, K. (2005) Description of NOMINATE Data, http://voteview.com/page2a.htm (accessed 22 November 2013).Google Scholar
Roberts, B. E. (1990) A Dead Senator Tells No Lies: Seniority and the Distribution of Federal Benefits. American Journal of Political Science 34(1): 31–58.Google Scholar
Rundquist, B. S. and Ferejohn, J. A. (1975) Observations on a Distributive Theory of Policy-Making. In Liske C., Loehr W. and McCamant J. (eds.), Comparative Public Policy. New York, NY: John Wiley, 45–68.Google Scholar
Sciara, G. (2012) Peering Inside the Pork Barrel: A Study of Congressional Earmarking in Transportation. Public Works Management and Policy 17(3): 217–237.Google Scholar
Stein, R. M. and Bickers, K. N. (1995) Perpetuating the Pork Barrel: Policy Subsystems and American Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ting, M. M. (2012) Legislatures, Bureaucracies, and Distributive Spending. American Political Science Review 106(2): 367–385.Google Scholar
United States Congressional Research Service (2013) Sequestration at the FAA: Air Traffic Controller Furloughs and Congressional Response, CRS Report 43065, United States Congressional Research Service, 7 May.Google Scholar
United States Contract Tower Association (USTCA) (2011) Annual Report 2011, http://www.contracttower.org/annual.html.Google Scholar
United States Contract Tower Association (USTCA) (2013) Annual Report 2013, http://www.contracttower.org/annual.html.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar