IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v89y2008i1p116-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Presidential Speeches on the Bureaucracy

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Eshbaugh‐Soha

Abstract

Objective. Scholars have long held that presidents use various tools to control the federal bureaucracy. Yet, despite their importance to presidents in achieving their policy goals in Congress, few scholars have examined the impact of presidential speeches on bureaucratic activity. This article analyzes the impact of both positive and negative policy signals on civil rights policy in the bureaucracy. Method. I test this hypothesis using speeches coded from the Public Papers of the Presidents and their impact on criminal cases filed by the Civil Rights Division over time. Given heteroskedasticity in the dependent variable, log‐linear time‐series methods are appropriate. Results. The president's positive speeches increase the number of criminal civil rights cases filed in U.S. District Court. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also has had a significant, positive impact on bureaucratic activity. Conclusions. In part because bureaucrats have discretion to resist presidential preferences that oppose an agency's core task, negative signals do not affect the implementation of civil rights policy. Yet, positive presidential speeches are available to presidents who may wish to influence the bureaucracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Eshbaugh‐Soha, 2008. "The Impact of Presidential Speeches on the Bureaucracy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(1), pages 116-132, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:89:y:2008:i:1:p:116-132
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00524.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00524.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00524.x?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. Wood, B. Dan, 1988. "Principals, Bureaucrats, and Responsiveness in Clean Air Enforcements," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(1), pages 213-234, March.
    2. Carpenter, Daniel P., 1996. "Adaptive Signal Processing, Hierarchy, and Budgetary Control in Federal Regulation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 283-302, June.
    3. Steven A. Shull & David Garland, 1995. "Presidential Influence Versus Agency Characteristics in Explaining Policy Implementation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 14(1‐2), pages 49-70, March.
    4. Weingast, Barry R & Moran, Mark J, 1983. "Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(5), pages 765-800, October.
    5. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Seungwoo Han, 2024. "Analyzing “Jayu” in South Korean presidential rhetoric: a comprehensive study from 1948–2023 with a focus on the Yoon Suk Yeol administration," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, December.

    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. Jodi L. Short, 2021. "The politics of regulatory enforcement and compliance: Theorizing and operationalizing political influences," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 653-685, July.
    2. Olson, Mary K, 1999. "Agency Rulemaking, Political Influences, Regulation, and Industry Compliance," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 573-601, October.
    3. Moser, Peter, 1999. "The impact of legislative institutions on public policy: a survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-33, March.
    4. Kwang-Ho Sim, 2000. "Interests and Political Institutions in U.S. Long-Distance Telecommunications Policy," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 107-123, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Andrew B. Whitford, 2002. "Decentralization and Political Control of the Bureaucracy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 167-193, April.
    7. Karen Maguire, 2013. "Drill Baby Drill? Political and Market Influences on Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing in the Western United States," Economics Working Paper Series 1401, Oklahoma State University, Department of Economics and Legal Studies in Business, revised Apr 2013.
    8. 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.
    9. Thomas H. Hammond & Jeffrey S. Hill, 1993. "Deference or Preference?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 23-59, January.
    10. Jerry Ellig & Christopher Conover, 2014. "Presidential priorities, congressional control, and the quality of regulatory analysis: an application to healthcare and homeland security," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 305-320, December.
    11. Rui J. P. De Figueiredo & Geoff Edwards, 2007. "Does Private Money Buy Public Policy? Campaign Contributions and Regulatory Outcomes in Telecommunications," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 547-576, September.
    12. Timo Goeschl & Johannes Jarke, 2013. "The warnings puzzle: an upstream explanation," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 339-360, December.
    13. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Evaluating the Quality and Use of Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card, 2008–2013," Working Papers 06878, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    14. Mary K. Olson, 1997. "Firm Characteristics and the Speed of FDA Approval," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 377-401, June.
    15. Maguire, Karen, 2012. "Prices or politics? The influence of markets and political party changes on oil and gas development in the United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 2013-2020.
    16. Kutsal Yesilkagit & Sandra Thiel, 2008. "Political Influence and Bureaucratic Autonomy," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 137-153, June.
    17. Matthew E.K. Hall, 2017. "Macro Implementation: Testing the Causal Paths from U.S. Macro Policy to Federal Incarceration," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 438-455, April.
    18. Gasmi, Farid & Hansen, Wendy L. & Laffont, Jean Jacques, 1997. "Une analyse empirique des décisions en matière d’antidumping aux États-Unis," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 73(1), pages 423-456, mars-juin.
    19. Mary K. Olson, 2000. "Regulatory Reform and Bureaucratic Responsiveness to Firms: the Impact of User Fees in the FDA," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 363-395, June.
    20. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.

    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:89:y:2008:i:1:p:116-132. 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.