IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v40y2020i3p473-491_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appointments and attrition: time and executive disadvantage in the appointments process

Author

Listed:
  • Hollibaugh, Gary E.
  • Rothenberg, Lawrence S.

Abstract

While the importance of political appointments is a matter of consensus, theorists and empiricists generally focus on different considerations, such as ideology and confirmation duration, respectively. More recently, there have been efforts to integrate empirical and theoretical scholarship but, to date, no empirical analysis assesses theoretical expectations about the relationship between temporal concerns and nominee ideologies. We fill this gap by examining theoretical predictions and related expectations about how the passage of time affects the President’s choices of nominees. We find that executives are disadvantaged as days pass and Presidents propose nominees with whom they are less ideologically compatible over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Hollibaugh, Gary E. & Rothenberg, Lawrence S., 2020. "Appointments and attrition: time and executive disadvantage in the appointments process," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 473-491, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:40:y:2020:i:3:p:473-491_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X18000442/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:40:y:2020:i:3:p:473-491_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.