Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-68cz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-18T13:10:20.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limitation Riders and Congressional Influence over Bureaucratic Policy Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2010

JASON A. MACDONALD
JASON A. MACDONALD*
Affiliation:
West Virginia University
*
Jason A. MacDonald is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, West Virginia University, 316 Woodburn Hall, P.O. Box 6317, Morgantown, WV 26506-6317 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Limitation riders, which allow the U.S. Congress to forbid agencies from spending money for specific uses, enable congressional majorities to exert greater influence over bureaucratic policy decisions than is appreciated by research on policy making in the United States. I develop a theory of limitation riders, explaining why they lead to policy outcomes that are preferable to a majority of legislators compared to outcomes that would occur if this tool did not exist. I assess this perspective empirically by analyzing the volume of limitation riders reported in bills from 1993 to 2002 and all limitation riders forbidding regulatory actions from 1989 to 2009. In addition to supporting the conclusion that Congress possesses more leverage over agencies’ decisions than is currently appreciated, the findings have implications for advancing theories of delegation.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 104 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 766 - 782
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aberbach, Joel D. 1990. Keeping a Watchful Eye: The Politics of Congressional Oversight. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Aberbach, Joel D. 2002. “What's Happened to the Watchful Eye?” Congress & the Presidency 29 (Spring): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, E. Scott. 2000. “Constituency Characteristics and the ‘Guardian’ Model of Appropriations Subcommittees, 1959–1998.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (January): 104–14.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 2000. “The Republican Revolution and the House Appropriations Committee.” Journal of Politics 62 (February): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balla, Steven J. 1998. “Administrative Procedures and Political Control of the Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 92 (September): 663–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen. 1995. “Political Control Versus Expertise: Congressional Choices about Administrative Procedures.” American Political Science Review 89 (March): 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. “What To Do (and Not To Do) with Time-series–Cross Section Data in Comparative Politics.” American Political Science Review 89 (September): 634–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, John, and Gates, Scott. 1997. Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M. 2000. Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Politics of Negative Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel 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, Daniel P., and Krause, George A.. 2009. “Bureaucratic Reputation and Democratic Governance in the United States: An Audience-Based Framework.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, Chicago.Google Scholar
Copeland, Curtis W. 2008. “Congressional Influence on Rulemaking and Regulation through Appropriations Restrictions.” Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress, RL34354.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2007. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deering, Christopher J., and Smith, Steven S.. 1997. Committees in Congress. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deschler, Lewis. 1977. Deschler's Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives, Volumes 1–9. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Epstein, David, and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1966. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Shipan, Charles. 1990. “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franchino, Fabio, and Høyland, Bjørn. 2009. “Legislative Involvement in Parliamentary Systems: Opportunities, Conflict, and Institutional Constraints.” American Political Science Review 103 (4): 607–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, James T., and Schroeder, Christopher H.. 1994. “Strategic Regulators and the Choice of Rulemaking Procedures: The Selection of Formal vs. Informal Rules in Regulating Hazardous Waste.” Law and Contemporary Problems 57 (Winter): 111–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, William G. 2003. Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D., and Shipan, Charles R.. 2002. Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D., Shipan, Charles R., and Pfahler, Madelain. 2001. “Legislators and Statutory Control of the Bureaucracy.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 330–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerwin, Cornelius M. 2003. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1988. “Presidential Influence on Congressional Appropriations Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (August): 713–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David E. 2003. Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design: Political Insulation in the United States Government Bureaucracy, 1946–1997. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David E. 2007. The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Presidential Appointments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., and Poole, Keith. 2004. “Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in Ideal Point Estimates via the Parametric Bootstrap.” Political Analysis 12 (Spring): 105–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Jason A. 2007. “Agency Design and Post-legislative Influence over the Bureaucracy.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (December): 683–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest. 1997. Competing Principals: Committees, Parties, and the Organization of Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2005. “Coalition Policymaking and Legislative Review.” American Political Science Review 99 (1): 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2004. “The Appointments Dilemma.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (July): 413–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.”Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3: 243–77.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1989. “Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies.” Virginia Law Review 75: 431–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., and Schwartz, Thomas. 1984. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols vs. Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1987. “An Assessment of the Positive Theory of ‘Congressional Dominance.’” Legislative Studies Quarterly 12 (4): 475–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1989. “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure.” In Can the Government Govern? eds. Chubb, John E. and Peterson, Paul E.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 267–329.Google Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J. 2004. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. 6th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, Lawrence S. 1994. Regulation, Organizations, and Politics: Motor Freight Policy at the Interstate Commerce Commission. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, Charles R. 2004. “Regulatory Regimes, Agency Actions, and the Conditional Nature of Congressional Influence.” American Political Science Review 98: 467–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steve S., and Deering, Christopher J.. 1990. Committees in Congress. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, Charles III. 1989. Budget Reform Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Charles III, and Woon, Jonathan. 2005. “Congressional Committee Assignments, 103rd to 109th Congresses, 1993–2005: U.S. House.” http://web.mit.edu/17.251/www/data_page.html (accessed May 31, 2006).Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. 2003. CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.1 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. http://gking.harvard.edu/stats.shtml (accessed October 7, 2010).Google Scholar
Wood, B. Dan, and Bohte, John. 2004. “Political Transaction Costs and the Politics of Administrative Design.” Journal of Politics 66 (1): 176–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. Dan, and Waterman, Richard W.. 1994. Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

MacDonald supplementary material

Appendices A-D

Download MacDonald supplementary material(File)
File 96.3 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.