IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v85y1991i03p829-850_17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Street-Level Political Controls Over Federal Bureaucracy

Author

Listed:
  • Scholz, John T.
  • Twombly, Jim
  • Headrick, Barbara

Abstract

Local partisan activities of legislators and their electoral coalitions systematically influence field office activities of federal bureaucracies in their electoral districts. This alternative to centralized democratic controls over bureaucracy occurs because discretionary policy decisions made at the field office level are influenced by local resources generated through partisan activities. Our study of county-level Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforcement in New York (1976–85) finds that county, state, and federal elected officials influence local enforcement activities, with liberal, Democratic legislators associated with more active enforcement. The county political parties are most influential for activities with the most local discretion, while members of Congress are more influential for local activities more readily controlled by the national office.

Suggested Citation

  • Scholz, John T. & Twombly, Jim & Headrick, Barbara, 1991. "Street-Level Political Controls Over Federal Bureaucracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 829-850, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:85:y:1991:i:03:p:829-850_17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400179560/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Choy, Stacey & Jiang, Shushu & Liao, Scott & Wang, Emma, 2024. "Public environmental enforcement and private lender monitoring: Evidence from environmental covenants," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2).
    2. William D. Schreckhise & Daniel E. Chand, 2023. "Local implementation of U.S. federal immigration programs: context, control, and the problems of intergovernmental implementation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 797-823, December.
    3. 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.
    4. John Mendeloff & Wayne B. Gray & Philip Armour & Frank Neuhauser, 2021. "The re‐occurrence of violations in occupational safety and health administration inspections," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1454-1479, October.
    5. Aidan R. Vining, 2016. "What Is Public Agency Strategic Analysis (PASA) and How Does It Differ from Public Policy Analysis and Firm Strategy Analysis?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-31, December.
    6. Andrew B. Whitford, 2002. "Decentralization and Political Control of the Bureaucracy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 167-193, April.
    7. Ayoki, Milton, 2005. "Trade, informality and the policy process in Uganda," MPRA Paper 101790, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Dec 2009.
    8. Assadi, Anahita & Lundin, Martin, 2015. "Tenure and street-level bureaucrats: how assessment tools are used at the frontline of the public sector," Working Paper Series 2015:19, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    9. Matthew Zafonte & Paul Sabatier, 1998. "Shared Beliefs and Imposed Interdependencies as Determinants of Ally Networks in Overlapping Subsystems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(4), pages 473-505, October.
    10. Laura I. Langbein, 1994. "Estimating the Impact of Regulatory Program Enforcement," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(5), pages 543-573, October.
    11. Faith Bradley & William D. Schreckhise & Daniel E. Chand, 2017. "Explaining States’ Responses to the REAL ID Act: the Role of Resources, Political Environment, and Implementor Attitudes in Complying with a Federal Mandate," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(3), pages 877-897, September.

    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:apsrev:v:85:y:1991:i:03:p:829-850_17. 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/psr .

    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.