1 / 21

Political Influence on the Bureaucracy:

Reading Presentation of Scott R. Furlong (1998). The Bureaucracy Speaks. Political Influence on the Bureaucracy:. AKMA YENI MASRI (1B10B9) MUTAQIN (1B10C4). Public Management and Policy Analysis Program (PMPP) International University of Japan 2011. The Research (Scott R. Furlong 1998).

roy
Télécharger la présentation

Political Influence on the Bureaucracy:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reading Presentation of Scott R. Furlong (1998) The Bureaucracy Speaks Political Influence on the Bureaucracy: AKMA YENI MASRI (1B10B9) MUTAQIN (1B10C4) Public Management and Policy Analysis Program (PMPP) International University of Japan 2011

  2. The Research (Scott R. Furlong 1998) • Introduction • Literature Review • Methodology • Results • Discussion and Conclusions

  3. Introduction • The study examines the theory of political influence over bureaucratic policy in the US making from the perspective of agency officials who are being pressured. • It explores their perception of influence from five other institutions in US system: Congress, the president, courts, interest groups, and the general public. • This exploratory study also examines the different methods used by these institutions in their pursuit of influence.

  4. Literature Review • The external forces on an agency and the complexity of the relationship between bureaus and other institutions (Kaufman 1981; Mitnick 1991) • Congress influence bureaucratic policy through a variety of ex post control and ex ante techniques (Weingast and Moran 1983; Bendor and Moe 1985; Mc Cubbins 1985), and also through formal and informal ways (Ogul 1976; West 1995).

  5. Literature review......(2) • President uses its executive orders to monitor and influence regulatory policy and rule making in the agency (Cooper and West 1988; Durrant 1992). • The courts also play an active role in decision making within bureaucracy (Moe 1985; Wood and Waterman 1993).

  6. Literature review......(3) • In all of theory of policy subsystem (Thurber 1991), issue networks (Heclo 1978), and advocacy coalitions (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993; Meier and Garman 1995), interest group attempt to influence the executive agencies through direct and indirect communication.

  7. Methodology • The research : surveys to executive branch managers in 12 agencies in US on 1995 : EPA, FTC, FCC, NRC, FAA, DOC, DOI, FDA, HCFA, OSHA, Energy, Education. • Some potential concerns: some offices selected may not deal with policy making, some lower-level managers may feel too far removed from the outside pressures, the survey does gather information from a variety of agencies, and surveys were sent to official agency headquarter rather than within the region.

  8. Results

  9. PERCEPTION OF INFLUENCE Previous Study by Waterman, Wright, and Rouse (1994) : The most Influencial organization are : Courts Congress President How about Furlong’s Research.....?????

  10. Perception of influence.....(2) Source : Furlong (1998)

  11. Perception of influence.....(3) The Implications : • Congress and President : the most influencing institutions on policy making. • They tend to share ability and responsibility rather than dominance/control each other  Supports the theory on multiple actors by Mitnick (1991) • The result is different than Waterman, Wright, and Rouse (1994) • The public is lowest one  may be hidden in the influence that happen indirectly through congress or interest group • Suggestion : must include interest groups as a factor influencing executive policy

  12. TYPES OF MECHANISM Used by President • Selecting/changing political appointess (6.29) • Contact : presidential staff and agency (6.20) • Executive orders (4,71) • Selecting/changing political appointess (6.12) • Contact : presidential staff -agency (4.49) • Executive orders (5.50) • Reorganization (4.03) • Direct contact : president - agency officials (3.01) • Reorganization (4.41) Frequency of Use Effectiveness

  13. Types of mechanism ...........(2) Important note : • Bureaucratic managers are more aware of presidential management techniques, particularly coercive control power. Gormley (1989) used the term of ‘muscle’ for this case. • ‘Reorganization’ in public administration literatures has important rules, but this study shows that this method is not very effective from manager’s perspective

  14. Types of mechanism ...........(3) Used by Congress • Member - Agency comm (6.21) • Statutory deadlines (6.09) • Prog-ev : congress support agency (2.39) • Statutory deadlines (5.29) • Hearing on bills (5.91) • Hearing on bills (4.81) • Staff-Agency comm (5.59) • Member - Agency comm (4.44) • Prog-Ev : congress support agency (5.42) • Prog Ev : committe staff (3.90) • Prog_Ev : committe staff (4.62) • Staff investigations (3.60) • Staff investigations (4.07) • Comments of FR doc (3.87) • Comments of FR doc (3.57) Frequency of Use Effectiveness

  15. Types of mechanism ...........(4) • Results is in accordance with many previous literatures on congressional oversight • Methods that tend toward muscle strategies are perceived more often and more effective

  16. Types of mechanism ...........(5) Used by Interest Group • Advisory, regulatory negotiation (6.19) • Congress committee comm (6.01) • Public meetings (6.00) • Agency personnel comm (5.88) • Advisory, regulatory negotiation (5.97) • Member – Agency comm (4.83) • Suit against agency when enforce action (5.33) • Petition agency (4.53) • Suit against agency before enforce action (5.32) • Member – Agency comm (4.72) • OMB contact (4.18) • OMB contact (4.71) • Suit against agency when enforce action (4.00) • Petition agency (4.58) • Suit against agency before enforce action (3.84) • Use another agency (3.26) • Use another agency (3.08) Frequency of Use Effectiveness

  17. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN AGENCIES RESPONDENT AGENCIES

  18. Distinctions between agencies ...........(2) Source : Furlong (1998)

  19. Distinctions between agencies ...........(3) • Differences are exploratory and speculative • IRCs’ personnel presume the traditional political actors (Congress and President) have less influence than others  support theory that IRCs are more independent from political institutions

  20. Conclusions & Suggestions • Agency officials perceive the influence in the policy making  react in the same way between top-down and bottom-up studies • More responses will be given to the pressures that speak loudly • Bureaucracy caters many and various demands  challenge the managers to search other preferences • Future research : Targetting particular offices in agency (instead of choosing randomly); conducting direct survey (face-to-face interviews); combining bottom-up and top-down approaches.

  21. Thank You

More Related