IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbisc/fsiii00204.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ministerial bureaucracies as stand-in agenda setters? A comparative description

Author

Listed:
  • Schnapp, Kai-Uwe

Abstract

This paper sets out to theoretically conceptualise and empirically describe the potential ability of ministerial bureaucracies to influence policy-making. The theoretical framework describes the chances for bureaucracies to influence policymaking as accruing from three sources: the organisational structures of the bureaucracy itself, room for bureaucratic discretion resulting from the preference configurations of the political actors, and the chance for the bureaucracy to act as political agenda setter rather than politicians. A quantitative empirical description of 21 OECD-countries is presented with the aim of comparing the relative strengths of the national ministerial bureaucracies. The paper concludes with an empirical classification of administrative systems. Japan, Belgium, and Ireland are found to be countries with a strong position for the bureaucracy in all of the theoretically described dimensions. The opposite end of the spectrum is marked by New Zealand, where the bureaucracy appears to be comparatively weak.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbisc:fsiii00204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/49000/1/320288617.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hood, Christopher & Huby, Meg & Dunsire, Andrew, 1984. "Bureaucrats and Budgeting Benefits: How do British Central Government Departments Measure Up?," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 163-179, August.
    2. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 8749, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    3. 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.
    4. Tsebelis, George, 1999. "Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 591-608, September.
    5. Barker, Anthony & Wilson, Graham K., 1997. "Whitehall's Disobedient Servants? Senior Officials' Potential Resistance to Ministers in British Government Departments," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 223-246, April.
    6. Tsebelis, George, 1995. "Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 289-325, July.
    7. Tsebelis, George, 1994. "The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 128-142, March.
    8. James E. Alt & Kenneth A. Shepsle, 1998. "Rules, Restrictions, Constraints: Structure and Process in the New Institutional Economics," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 154(4), pages 735-735, December.
    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. Heike Klüver & Iñaki Sagarzazu, 2013. "Ideological congruency and decision-making speed: The effect of partisanship across European Union institutions," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 388-407, September.
    2. Jason Webb Yackee & Susan Webb Yackee, 2009. "Divided government and US federal rulemaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 128-144, June.
    3. John Coultrap, 1999. "From Parliamentarism to Pluralism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 107-135, January.
    4. Gabriele Gratton & Massimo Morelli, 2022. "Optimal Checks And Balances Under Policy Uncertainty," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(2), pages 549-569, May.
    5. Justesen, Mogens K. & Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2007. "The constitution of economic growth: Testing the prosperity effects of a Madisonian model on a panel of countries 1980‐2000," MPRA Paper 36063, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Madeleine O. Hosli & Běla Plechanovová & Serguei Kaniovski, 2018. "Vote Probabilities, Thresholds and Actor Preferences: Decision Capacity and the Council of the European Union," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 31-52, June.
    7. Ali Akarca, 2018. "Political Determinants of Government Structure and Economic Performance in Turkey since 1950," Working Papers 1241, Economic Research Forum, revised 23 Oct 2018.
    8. Michael J. Ireland & Scott Sigmund Gartner, 2001. "Time to Fight," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(5), pages 547-568, October.
    9. Hideko Magara, 2013. "Introduction: two decades of structural reform and political change in Italy and Japan," Chapters, in: Hideko Magara & Stefano Sacchi (ed.), The Politics of Structural Reforms, chapter 1, pages 1-24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Niklas Potrafke, 2006. "Parties Matter in Allocating Expenditures: Evidence from Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 652, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    11. Patrick Mardini, 2015. "The Endangered Classical Liberal Tradition in Lebanon: A General Description and Survey Results," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 12(2), pages 242–259-2, May.
    12. Pierre Mandon & Clément Mathonnat, 2014. "Forms of Democracies and Financial Development," CERDI Working papers halshs-01084679, HAL.
    13. Hallerberg, Mark, 2000. "The importance of domestic political institutions: Why and how Belgium and Italy qualified for EMU," ZEI Working Papers B 10-2000, University of Bonn, ZEI - Center for European Integration Studies.
    14. Troeger, Vera, 2012. "De Facto Capital Mobility, Equality, and Tax Policy in Open Economies," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 84, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    15. Amihai Glazer & Anthony McGann, 2005. "Direct Democracy and the Stability of State Policy," Working Papers 050615, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    16. Geoffrey Garrett & George Tsebelis, 1999. "Why Resist the Temptation to Apply Power Indices to the European Union?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 291-308, July.
    17. Bernard Steunenberg & Dieter Schmidtchen & Christian Koboldt, 1999. "Strategic Power in the European Union," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 339-366, July.
    18. Fuchs, Dieter, 2000. "Typen und Indizes demokratischer Regime: Eine Analyse des Präsidentialismus- und des Veto-Spieler-Ansatzes," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 00-205, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    19. Geoffrey Garrett & George Tsebelis & Richard Corbett, 2001. "The EU Legislative Process," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(3), pages 353-366, October.
    20. Amie Kreppel, 2000. "Rules, Ideology and Coalition Formation in the European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(3), pages 340-362, October.

    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:zbw:wzbisc:fsiii00204. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzbbbde.html .

    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.