Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:26:46.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bureaucratic Expertise versus Legislative Authority: A Model of Deception and Monitoring in Budgeting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1985

Jonathan Bendor ,
Serge Taylor  and
Roland Van Gaalen
Jonathan Bendor
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Serge Taylor
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Roland Van Gaalen
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The empirical literature on the control of bureaus notes that politicians have difficulty observing bureaucratic output, but this insight is rarely represented informal models. To analyze how bureaus use this uncertainty strategically, we develop a model of expertise-based agenda control, building on the Niskanen (1971) and Miller and Moe (1983) tradition. We show that under some plausible conditions, bureaus will underestimate the benefits, and overestimate the costs, of their programs. In the model, politicians are neither passive nor omniscient: they anticipate the bureau's strategic behavior and establish a monitoring system to counteract it. This possibility of detection changes the bureau's behavior: even imperfect monitoring reduces the bureau's deception of the legislature, whether or not the legislature's demand for the bureau's services is concealed. Moreover, uncertainty by itself matters: if the legislature makes it harder for a risk-averse bureau chief to predict demand or penalty, the bureau will restrain its deception.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 1041 - 1060
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

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

Admati, A. A noisy rational expectations equilibrium for multi-asset securities market. Research Paper No. 737. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. May 1984.Google Scholar
Bendor, J. Parallel systems: Redundancy in government. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.10.1525/9780520321502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendor, J., Taylor, S., & Van Gaalen, R. Stacking the deck: Bureaucratic missions and the search for alternatives. Paper prepared for Conference on Adaptive institutions, Stanford University, November 1984.Google Scholar
Bendor, J., Taylor, S., & Van Gaalen, R. Bureau-legislative relations under uncertainty. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Working Paper, 1985.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T. C., & Goodman, R. P. Private demands for public goods. American Economic Review, 1973, 63, 280–286.Google Scholar
Borcherding, T. C., & Deacon, R. T. The demand for the services of non-federal governments. American Economic Review, 1972, 62, 891–901.Google Scholar
Breton, A., & Wintrobe, R. The equilibrium size of a budget-maximizing bureau. Journal of Political Economy, 1975, 82, 195–207.10.1086/260313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, F. J. The FBI nobody knows. New York: Macmillan, 1964.Google Scholar
Denzau, A. T., & MacKay, R. J. Structure-induced equilibria and perfect foresight expectations. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, 25, 762–779.10.2307/2110762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Fenno, R. The power of the purse: Appropriations politics in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J. A. Pork barrel politics. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J. A., Fiorina, M., & Packet, E. W.. Nonequilibrium solutions for legislative systems. Behavioral Science, 1980, 25, 140–148.10.1002/bs.3830250206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (Eds. and trans.). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Hey, J. D. Uncertainty in microeconomics. New York: New York University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Larkey, P. D., & Smith, R. A. The misrepresentation of information in governmental budgeting. Carnegie-Mellon, unpublished draft, 1983.Google Scholar
Lippman, S. A., & McCall, J. J. The economics of uncertainty: Selected topics and probabilistic methods. In Arrow, K. J. & Intriligator, M. D. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical economics (Vol. 1). New York: Elsevier, 1981.Google Scholar
Mackay, R. J., & Weaver, C. L. Agenda control by budget maximizers in a multi-bureau setting. Public Choice, 1981, 37, 447–472.10.1007/BF00133745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. The revealed preferences of a government bureaucracy: Empirical evidence. Bell Journal of Economics, 1976, 7, 55–72.10.2307/3003190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. J., & Altfeld, M. F. Sources of bureaucratic influence: Expertise and agenda control. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1984, 25, 701–730.Google Scholar
Miller, G. J., & Moe, T. M. Bureaucrats, legislators, and the size of government. American Political Science Review, 1983, 77, 297–322.10.2307/1958917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, W. Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W. Bureaucrats and politicians. The Journal of Law and Economics, 1975, 18, 617–644.10.1086/466829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo. Public Choice, 1978, 33, 27–43.10.1007/BF03187594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M., & Stiglitz, J. E. Increasing risk: II. Its economic consequences. Journal of Economic Theory, 1971, 3, 66–84.10.1016/0022-0531(71)90034-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K. A. Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 1979, 23, 27–60.10.2307/2110770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. Structure induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 1981, 37, 503–519.10.1007/BF00133748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. Political solutions to market problems. American Political Science Review, 1984, 78, 417–434.10.2307/1963373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., Weingast, B. R., & Johnsen, C. The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Economy, 1981, 89, 642–664.Google Scholar
Spencer, B. J. Asymmetric information and excessive budgets in government bureaucracies: A principal-agent approach. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, 1982, 3, 642–664.10.1016/0167-2681(82)90018-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. L. Constructing social theories. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1968.Google Scholar
Stockfisch, J. A. Plowshares into swords: Managing the American defense establishment. New York: Mason & Lipscomb, 1973.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. Making bureaucracies think: The environmental impact statement strategy of administrative reform. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. Aesthetics of risk: Culture or context. In Schwing, R. C. and Albers, W. A. (Eds.), Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? New York: Plenum, 1980.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. The politics of the budgetary process (3rd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown, 1979.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. How to limit government spending. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.