Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-956mj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T22:18:48.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energy versus safety: unilateral action, voter welfare, and executive accountability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2021

Benjamin S. Noble Open the ORCID record for Benjamin S. Noble [Opens in a new window]
Benjamin S. Noble*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
*
*Corresponding author. benjaminnoble.org, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Does increasing executive power necessarily decrease accountability? To answer this question, I develop a two-period signaling model comparing voter welfare in two separation-of-powers settings. In one, the executive works with a median legislator to change policy; in the other, the executive chooses between legislation or unilateral action. Both politicians may have preferences that diverge from the voter's, yet I find that increasing executive power may increase accountability and welfare, even in some cases when the legislator is more likely to share the voter's preferences than the executive. Unilateral power allows a congruent executive to overcome gridlock, implement the voter's preferred policy, and reveal information about the politicians’ types—which can outweigh the risks of a divergent executive wielding power for partisan ends.

Keywords

American PoliticsFormal ModelingPresidency and Executive Politics
Type
Original Article
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , July 2023 , pp. 468 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Political Science Association

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

Bartels, LM (1996) Uninformed votes: information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science 40, 194.10.2307/2111700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buisseret, P (2016) “Together or apart”? On joint versus separate electoral accountability. The Journal of Politics 78, 542–556.10.1086/684584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, CM (2012) Vetoes, bargaining, and boundary conditions. Political Analysis 20, 520–524.10.1093/pan/mps029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, B and de Marchi, S (2002) Presidential approval and legislative success. The Journal of Politics 64, 491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, B, Herron, MC and Shotts, KW (2001) Leadership and pandering: a theory of executive policymaking. American Journal of Political Science 45, 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpini, MXD and Keeter, S (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chiou, F-Y and Rothenberg, LS (2017) The Enigma of Presidential Power: Parties, Policies and Strategic Uses of Unilateral Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, DP and Kriner, DL (2017a) Constitutional qualms or politics as usual? The factors shaping public support for unilateral action. American Journal of Political Science 61, 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, DP and Kriner, DL (2017b) Mobilizing the public against the president: congress and the political costs of unilateral action. American Journal of Political Science 61, 769–785.10.1111/ajps.12298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, DP and Kriner, DL (2020) The Myth of the Imperial Presidency: How Public Opinion Checks the Unilateral Executive. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djourelova, M and Durante, R (N.d) “Media attention and strategic timing in politics: evidence from U.S. presidential executive orders.”. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Fearon, JD (1999) Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, ed. Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes and Bernard Manin. Cambridge University Press p. 55–97.10.1017/CBO9781139175104.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, MP (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ Press.Google Scholar
Foster, D (Forthcoming) Anticipating unilateralism. Journal of Politics.Google Scholar
Fox, J and Van Weelden, R (2010) Partisanship and the effectiveness of oversight. Journal of Public Economics 94, 674–687.10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, AB (2019) Who Wants to Run?: How the Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226609607.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, A, Jay, J and Madison, J (2001) The Federalist. The gideon edition. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Howell, WG (2003) Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400874392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, WG (2013) Thinking about the Presidency: The Primacy of Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctt24hr63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, WG and Moe, TM (2016) Relic: How Our Constitution Undermines Effective Government—And Why We Need a More Powerful Presidency. 1st ed. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Howell, WG and Wolton, S (2018) The politician's province. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 13, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, G (2017) Showing off: promise and peril in unilateral policymaking. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12, 241–268.Google Scholar
Judd, G and Rothenberg, LS (2020) Flexibility or stability? Analyzing proposals to reform the separation of powers. American Journal of Political Science 64, 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, E (2001) Presidential administration. Harvard Law Review 114, 2245–2385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, M (2020) Presidential unilateral action as a tool of voter mobilization. Presidential Studies Quarterly 50, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, K (1998) Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriner, DL and Reeves, A (2015) The Particularistic President: Executive Branch Politics and Political Inequality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, FE (2016) Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskin, E and Tirole, J (2004) The politician and the judge: accountability in government. The American Economic Review 94, 1034–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, EA and Vermeule, A (2011) The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199765331.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, A and Rogowski, JC (2016) Unilateral powers, public opinion, and the presidency. The Journal of Politics 78, 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, A and Rogowski, JC (2018) The public cost of unilateral action. American Journal of Political Science 62, 424–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, A and Rogowski, JC (Forthcoming) No Blank: Check Why the Public Dislikes Presidential Power and What It Means for Governing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rudalevige, A (2012) The contemporary presidency: executive orders and presidential unilateralism. Presidential Studies Quarterly 42, 138–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, MC and Nzelibe, JO (2010) Political accountability under alternative institutional regimes. Journal of Theoretical Politics 22, 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrower, S (2017) To revoke or not revoke? The political determinants of executive order longevity. American Journal of Political Science 61, 642–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, IR (2020) Policy durability, agency capacity, and executive unilateralism. Presidential Studies Quarterly 50, 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, BD (2009) The Myth of Presidential Representation. 1st ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Noble supplementary material

Noble supplementary material

Download Noble supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 170.8 KB