IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v104y2023i4p702-715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do bureaucratic appointees change their minds? Preference stability at the NLRB

Author

Listed:
  • David C. Nixon

Abstract

Objectives Questions of attitude stability for appointed decisionmakers are vital to our understanding of democracy. I test the assumption of bureaucratic preference stability that is widespread in formal and empirical analyses of the U.S. executive branch. Methods The study presents a qualitative analysis of quantitative voting data for members of the National Labor Relations Board from 1948 to 1988 Results Analysis reveals a few clear cases of permanent and important preference change and some evidence of change at the very beginning or very end of a few board members' careers. But overall there is remarkable stability in the relative levels of support for labor exhibited by board members as their careers unfold. Conclusions With some notable exceptions, an independent regulatory board member's revealed preferences tend to remain stable and consistent with the expectations that any observer would have had at the time of their initial appointment.

Suggested Citation

  • David C. Nixon, 2023. "Do bureaucratic appointees change their minds? Preference stability at the NLRB," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(4), pages 702-715, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:4:p:702-715
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13294
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13294?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin M. Quinn, 2007. "Assessing Preference Change on the US Supreme Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 365-385, June.
    2. Gary E. Hollibaugh & Lawrence S. Rothenberg, 2018. "The Who, When, and Where of Executive Nominations: Integrating Agency Independence and Appointee Ideology," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(2), pages 296-311, April.
    3. Moe, Terry M., 1985. "Control and Feedback in Economic Regulation: The Case of the NLRB," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1094-1116, December.
    4. Hammond, Thomas H & Knott, Jack H, 1996. "Who Controls the Bureaucracy?: Presidential Power, Congressional Dominance, Legal Constraints, and Bureaucratic Autonomy in a Model of Multi-institutional Policy-Making," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 119-166, April.
    5. Keith Poole, 2007. "Changing minds? Not in Congress!," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 435-451, June.
    6. Keith E. Schnakenberg & Ian R. Turner & Alicia Uribe-McGuire, 2017. "Allies or commitment devices? A model of appointments to the Federal Reserve," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 118-132, July.
    7. Joshua D. Clinton & David E. Lewis & Jennifer L. Selin, 2014. "Influencing the Bureaucracy: The Irony of Congressional Oversight," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 387-401, April.
    8. Macdonald, Jason A., 2010. "Limitation Riders and Congressional Influence over Bureaucratic Policy Decisions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(4), pages 766-782, November.
    9. Snyder, Susan K & Weingast, Barry R, 2000. "The American System of Shared Powers: The President, Congress, and the NLRB," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 269-305, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel P. Gitterman, 2013. "Remaking a Bargain: The Political Logic of the Minimum Wage in the United States," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 3-36, March.
    2. Min-Seok Pang, 2017. "Politics and Information Technology Investments in the U.S. Federal Government in 2003–2016," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 33-45, March.
    3. John M. de Figueiredo & Edward H. Stiglitz, 2015. "Democratic Rulemaking," NBER Working Papers 21765, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Kutsal Yesilkagit & Sandra Thiel, 2008. "Political Influence and Bureaucratic Autonomy," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 137-153, June.
    5. Sean Gailmard, 2009. "Multiple Principals and Oversight of Bureaucratic Policy-Making," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 161-186, April.
    6. Jordan Carr Peterson, 2018. "All Their Eggs in One Basket? Ideological Congruence in Congress and the Bicameral Origins of Concentrated Delegation to the Bureaucracy," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, May.
    7. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iepsg269m is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Peter Zweifel, 2006. "Auftrag und Grenzen der Sozialen Krankenversicherung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 7(s1), pages 5-26, May.
    9. Maciej Czaplewski, 2015. "Oddziaływanie regulacyjne Unii Europejskiej na rynek usług telekomunikacyjnych," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 5, pages 65-87.
    10. Federico M. Giesenow & Jakob de Haan, 2019. "The influence of government ideology on monetary policy: New cross‐country evidence based on dynamic heterogeneous panels," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 216-239, July.
    11. Hervé Crès & M. Utku Ünver, 2010. "Ideology and Existence of 50%-Majority Equilibria in Multidimensional Spatial Voting Models," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 431-444, October.
    12. David M. Primo & Sarah A. Binder & Forrest Maltzman, 2008. "Who Consents? Competing Pivots in Federal Judicial Selection," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 471-489, July.
    13. Peter Zweifel & Friedrich Breyer, 2012. "The Economics of Social Health Insurance," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Alshamy, Yahya & Coyne, Christopher J. & Goodman, Nathan, 2023. "Noxious government markets: Evidence from the international arms trade," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 87-99.
    15. Adam R. Fremeth & Guy L. F. Holburn & Richard G. Vanden Bergh, 2016. "Corporate Political Strategy in Contested Regulatory Environments," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 272-284, December.
    16. Randall W. Bennett & Christine Loucks, 1996. "Politics And Length Of Time To Bank Failure: 1986–1990," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 14(4), pages 29-41, October.
    17. Keaton Miller & Boyoung Seo, 2021. "The Effect of Cannabis Legalization on Substance Demand and Tax Revenues," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(1), pages 107-145.
    18. Laurence E. Lynn Jr. & Carolyn J. Hill, 2001. "Producing Human Services: Why Do Agencies Collaborate?," JCPR Working Papers 219, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    19. Dahlvik Julia & Pohn-Weidinger Axel & Kollegger Martina, 2020. "Independence despite Political Appointment ? The Curious Case of the Austrian Ombudsman Board," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 181-210, December.
    20. Schnapp, Kai-Uwe, 2000. "Ministerial bureaucracies as stand-in agenda setters? A comparative description," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 00-204, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    21. Fang-Yi Chiou & Lawrence S Rothenberg, 2014. "Executive appointments: Duration, ideology, and hierarchy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 26(3), pages 496-517, July.

    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:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:4:p:702-715. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.