IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v12y2004i03p201-232_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political Learning from Rare Events: Poisson Inference, Fiscal Constraints, and the Lifetime of Bureaus

Author

Listed:
  • Carpenter, Daniel P.
  • Lewis, David E.

Abstract

How do political actors learn about their environment when the “data” provided by political processes are characterized by rare events and highly discontinuous variation? In such learning environments, what can theory predict about how learning actors will take costly actions that are difficult to reverse (e.g., eliminating programs, approving a risky new product, revising a security policy, firing or recalling an appointed or elected official)? We develop a formal model for this problem and apply it to the termination of bureaucratic agencies. The conventional wisdom that “the older a bureau is, the less likely it is to die” (Downs 1967, Inside Bureaucracy) persists but has never been properly tested. This paper offers a learning-based stochastic optimization model of agency termination that offers two counterintuitive predictions. First, politicians terminate agencies only after learning about them, so the hazard of agencies should be nonmonotonic, contradicting Downs's prediction. Second, if terminating agencies is costly, agencies are least likely to be terminated when politicians are fiscally constrained or when the deficit is high. We assess the model by developing a battery of tests for the shape of the hazard function and estimate these and other duration models using data on U.S. federal government agencies created between 1946 and 1997. Results show that the hazard rate of agency termination is strongly nonmonotonic and that agencies are less likely to be terminated under high deficits and divided government. For the first 50 years of the agency duration distribution, the modal termination hazard occurs at five years after agencies are enabled. Methodologically, our approach ties the functional form of a hazard model tightly to theory and presents an applied “agenda” for testing the shape of an empirical hazard function. With extensions, our model and empirical framework are applicable to a range of political phenomena.

Suggested Citation

  • Carpenter, Daniel P. & Lewis, David E., 2004. "Political Learning from Rare Events: Poisson Inference, Fiscal Constraints, and the Lifetime of Bureaus," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 201-232, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:12:y:2004:i:03:p:201-232_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700003934/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. Christian Adam & Michael Bauer & Christoph Knill & Philipp Studinger, 2007. "The Termination of Public Organizations: Theoretical Perspectives to Revitalize a Promising Research Area," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 221-236, September.
    2. Boswell, John & Cairney, Paul & St Denny, Emily, 2019. "The politics of institutionalizing preventive health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 202-210.
    3. Silvia Fresneda & Nuria Reguera & Fernando Casas, 2021. "De-agentification Process in Spanish Regional Governments," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 236(1), pages 39-64, March.
    4. Christopher R. Berry & Barry C. Burden & William G. Howell, 2010. "After Enactment: The Lives and Deaths of Federal Programs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Andrew B. Whitford, 2008. "A Test of the Political Control of Bureaucracies Under Asymmetric Information," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(4), pages 445-470, November.
    6. Sanneke Kuipers & Kutsal Yesilkagit & Brendan Carroll, 2018. "Coming to Terms with Termination of Public Organizations," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 263-278, June.
    7. Manuela Moschella & Luca Pinto, 2022. "The multi‐agencies dilemma of delegation: Why do policymakers choose one or multiple agencies for financial regulation?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1250-1264, October.
    8. Jessica Pesantez-Narvaez & Montserrat Guillen & Manuela Alcañiz, 2021. "RiskLogitboost Regression for Rare Events in Binary Response: An Econometric Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-21, March.

    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:polals:v:12:y:2004:i:03:p:201-232_00. 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/pan .

    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.