Understanding commenter influence during agency rule development

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 258-277

  Naughton, Keith ^a   Schmid, Celeste ^a   Yackee, Susan Webb ^b   Zhan, Xueyong ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 76949097209     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: 15206688     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.20426     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Balla, S. J. (1998). Administrative procedures and political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 92, 663-673.
2. Balla, S. J., & Wright, J. R. (2001). Interest groups, advisory committees, and congressional control of the bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 799-812.
3. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952.
4. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57, 632-642.
5. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Beierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2000). Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 587-602.
8. Cannon, C. (2006). Summary remarks at the Congressional Hearing. 60th Anniversary of the Administrative Procedure Act: Where do we go from here? Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law in the U.S. House of Representatives. July 25, 2006.
9. Chubb, J. E. (1983). Interest groups and the bureaucracy: The politics of energy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10. Coglianese, C. (1997). Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal, 46, 1255-1349.
11. Croley, S. P. (1998). Theories of regulation: Incorporating the administrative process. Columbia Law Review, 98, 1-168.
12. Cuéllar, M. (2005). Rethinking regulatory democracy. Administrative Law Review, 57, 412-499.
13. Daley, D. M. (2007). Citizen groups and scientific decisionmaking: Does public participation influence environmental outcomes? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 349-368.
14. Foreman, C. (1988). Signals from the hill: Congressional oversight and the challenge of social regulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15. Fritschler, A. L., & Rudder, C. E. (2006). Smoking and politics: Bureaucracy centered policymaking, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16. Furlong, S. R. (1998). Political influence on the bureaucracy: The bureaucracy speaks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 39-65.
17. Furlong, S. R., & Kerwin, C. M. (2005). Interest group participation in rulemaking: A decade of change. Journal of Public Administration and Research, 15, 353-370.
18. Golden, M. M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 245-270.
19. Jewell, C., & Bero, L. (2007). Public participation and claimsmaking: Evidence utilization and divergent policy frames in California's ergonomics rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 625-650.
20. Kerwin, C. M. (2003). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
21. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2nd ed. New York: Harper-Collins.
22. Langbein, L. I. (2002). Responsive bureaus, equity, and regulatory negotiation: An empirical view. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 449-465.
23. Langbein, L. I., & Kerwin, C. M. (2000). Regulatory negotiation versus conventional rule making: Claims, counterclaims, and empirical evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 599-632.
24. Magat, W. A., Krupnick, A. J., & Harrington, W. (1986). Rules in the making: A statistical analysis of regulatory agency behavior. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
25. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26. McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243-277.
27. McKay, A., & Yackee, S. W. (2007). Interest group competition on federal agency rules. American Politics Research, 35, 336-357.
28. Moe, T. M. (1985). The politicized presidency. In J. E. Chubb & P. Peterson (Eds.), The new direction in American politics (pp. 235-271). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
29. Nathan, R. P. (1983). The administrative presidency. New York: John Wiley.
30. Perritt, H. H., Jr. (1986). Negotiated rulemaking in practice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5, 482-495.
31. Ringquist, E. J., Worsham, J., & Eisner, M. A. (2003). Salience, complexity, and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 141-164.
32. Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co.
33. Wahl, A., & Gunkel, S. E. (1999). Due process, resource mobilization, and the occupational safety and health administration, 1971-1996: The politics of social regulation in historical perspective. Social Problems, 46, 591-616.
34. Weingast, B. R., & Moran, M. J. (1983). Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy, 91, 765-800.
35. West, W. (1995). Controlling the bureaucracy: Institutional constraints in theory and practice. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
36. West, W. (2004). Formal procedures, informal procedures, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policy making: An institutional policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 64, 66-80.
37. West, W. (2005). Administrative rule-making: An old and emerging literature. Public Administration Review, 65, 655-668.
38. West, W. (2006). Oral testimony for the Congressional Hearing. The 60th Anniversary of the Administrative Procedure Act: Where do we go from here? Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law in the U.S. House of Representatives. July 25, 2006.
39. Wishy, J. (2006). An empirical investigation of participation and influence in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation rulemaking proceedings, 2001-2003. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Albany.
40. Wood, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2007). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 552-568.
41. Wood, B. D., & Waterman, R. W. (1991). The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 85, 801-828.
42. Woods, N. (2005). Interest group influence on state administrative rule making: The impact of rule review. American Review of Public Administration, 35, 402-413.
43. Yackee, S. W. (2006a). Sweet-talking the fourth branch: Assessing the influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 103-124.
44. Yackee, S. W. (2006b). Assessing inter-institutional attention to and influence on government regulations. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 723-744.
45. Yackee, J. W., & Yackee, S. W. (2006). A bias toward business? Assessing interest group influence on the bureaucracy. Journal of Politics, 68, 128-139.