Political Control and the Power of the Agent
In the study of public bureaucracy, the relationship between political authorities and bureaucrats is commonly understood as one of principal and agent, and analysis centers on how the authorities can try to overcome the information asymmetry at the heart of this relationship—arising from the bureau...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of law, economics, & organization economics, & organization, 2006-04, Vol.22 (1), p.1-29 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 29 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | Journal of law, economics, & organization |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Moe, Terry M. |
description | In the study of public bureaucracy, the relationship between political authorities and bureaucrats is commonly understood as one of principal and agent, and analysis centers on how the authorities can try to overcome the information asymmetry at the heart of this relationship—arising from the bureaucrats' expertise and other private information—to exercise a measure of control over their subordinates. In this standard view, information is the source of bureaucratic power. There is a second basis of bureaucratic power, however, that the literature overlooks. Precisely because the authorities are elected, bureaucrats can take political action—especially if organized by public sector unions—to influence who gets elected and what choices they make in office. This gives bureaucrats a political capacity to control their own controllers, putting the usual principal-agent relationship in a very different light. The purpose of this paper, then, is to make a case for the political power of the agent, and to argue for a reorientation of the current theory. In the empirical analysis, the argument is applied to the electoral behavior and impact of public school teachers and their unions—showing that they are quite active and influential in choosing the key authorities that are supposed to be governing them. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jleo/ewj011 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1866650473</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3555032</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3555032</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-113c4356c7afcaa9520ba6c3ad40104d5e67cb39b5168ec95727fad39120675b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0M1LwzAYBvAgCs7pyauH4knQunw0X8cx1AlDd1AcXkKaptraNTPJmP73dlZ2MJeX8Px4eXkAOEXwGkFJRnVj3chuaojQHhigjNGUkwztg4HglKUMY3wIjkKoYfckkQNwNXdNFSujm2Ti2uhdk-i2SOK7TeZuY33iyt_P-M228RgclLoJ9uRvDsHz7c3TZJrOHu_uJ-NZajKOY4oQMRmhzHBdGq0lxTDXzBBdZBDBrKCWcZMTmVPEhDWScsxLXRCJMGSc5mQILvq9K-8-1zZEtayCsU2jW-vWQSHBGKMw46Sj5_9o7da-7a5TGAmJCMKyQ5c9Mt6F4G2pVr5aav-tEFTb4tS2ONUX1-mzXtchOr-jhFIKCe7itI-rEO3XLtb-QzFOOFXTxasSD_OFWLwIJcgPWGV4DA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218913129</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Political Control and the Power of the Agent</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Moe, Terry M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Moe, Terry M.</creatorcontrib><description>In the study of public bureaucracy, the relationship between political authorities and bureaucrats is commonly understood as one of principal and agent, and analysis centers on how the authorities can try to overcome the information asymmetry at the heart of this relationship—arising from the bureaucrats' expertise and other private information—to exercise a measure of control over their subordinates. In this standard view, information is the source of bureaucratic power. There is a second basis of bureaucratic power, however, that the literature overlooks. Precisely because the authorities are elected, bureaucrats can take political action—especially if organized by public sector unions—to influence who gets elected and what choices they make in office. This gives bureaucrats a political capacity to control their own controllers, putting the usual principal-agent relationship in a very different light. The purpose of this paper, then, is to make a case for the political power of the agent, and to argue for a reorientation of the current theory. In the empirical analysis, the argument is applied to the electoral behavior and impact of public school teachers and their unions—showing that they are quite active and influential in choosing the key authorities that are supposed to be governing them.</description><identifier>ISSN: 8756-6222</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1465-7341</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jleo/ewj011</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Boards of education ; Bureaucracy ; Bureaucrats ; Economics ; Economists ; Elections ; Electoral districts ; Government bureaucracy ; Incumbents ; Labor unions ; Political behavior ; Political candidates ; Political power ; Politics ; Power ; Public schools ; Public sector ; School districts ; Studies ; Teachers ; Trade unions ; United States ; Voting</subject><ispartof>Journal of law, economics, & organization, 2006-04, Vol.22 (1), p.1-29</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2006 Oxford University Press</rights><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press(England) Apr 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-113c4356c7afcaa9520ba6c3ad40104d5e67cb39b5168ec95727fad39120675b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-113c4356c7afcaa9520ba6c3ad40104d5e67cb39b5168ec95727fad39120675b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3555032$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3555032$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moe, Terry M.</creatorcontrib><title>Political Control and the Power of the Agent</title><title>Journal of law, economics, & organization</title><addtitle>JLEO</addtitle><description>In the study of public bureaucracy, the relationship between political authorities and bureaucrats is commonly understood as one of principal and agent, and analysis centers on how the authorities can try to overcome the information asymmetry at the heart of this relationship—arising from the bureaucrats' expertise and other private information—to exercise a measure of control over their subordinates. In this standard view, information is the source of bureaucratic power. There is a second basis of bureaucratic power, however, that the literature overlooks. Precisely because the authorities are elected, bureaucrats can take political action—especially if organized by public sector unions—to influence who gets elected and what choices they make in office. This gives bureaucrats a political capacity to control their own controllers, putting the usual principal-agent relationship in a very different light. The purpose of this paper, then, is to make a case for the political power of the agent, and to argue for a reorientation of the current theory. In the empirical analysis, the argument is applied to the electoral behavior and impact of public school teachers and their unions—showing that they are quite active and influential in choosing the key authorities that are supposed to be governing them.</description><subject>Boards of education</subject><subject>Bureaucracy</subject><subject>Bureaucrats</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Economists</subject><subject>Elections</subject><subject>Electoral districts</subject><subject>Government bureaucracy</subject><subject>Incumbents</subject><subject>Labor unions</subject><subject>Political behavior</subject><subject>Political candidates</subject><subject>Political power</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Public schools</subject><subject>Public sector</subject><subject>School districts</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Trade unions</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Voting</subject><issn>8756-6222</issn><issn>1465-7341</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpd0M1LwzAYBvAgCs7pyauH4knQunw0X8cx1AlDd1AcXkKaptraNTPJmP73dlZ2MJeX8Px4eXkAOEXwGkFJRnVj3chuaojQHhigjNGUkwztg4HglKUMY3wIjkKoYfckkQNwNXdNFSujm2Ti2uhdk-i2SOK7TeZuY33iyt_P-M228RgclLoJ9uRvDsHz7c3TZJrOHu_uJ-NZajKOY4oQMRmhzHBdGq0lxTDXzBBdZBDBrKCWcZMTmVPEhDWScsxLXRCJMGSc5mQILvq9K-8-1zZEtayCsU2jW-vWQSHBGKMw46Sj5_9o7da-7a5TGAmJCMKyQ5c9Mt6F4G2pVr5aav-tEFTb4tS2ONUX1-mzXtchOr-jhFIKCe7itI-rEO3XLtb-QzFOOFXTxasSD_OFWLwIJcgPWGV4DA</recordid><startdate>20060401</startdate><enddate>20060401</enddate><creator>Moe, Terry M.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060401</creationdate><title>Political Control and the Power of the Agent</title><author>Moe, Terry M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-113c4356c7afcaa9520ba6c3ad40104d5e67cb39b5168ec95727fad39120675b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Boards of education</topic><topic>Bureaucracy</topic><topic>Bureaucrats</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Economists</topic><topic>Elections</topic><topic>Electoral districts</topic><topic>Government bureaucracy</topic><topic>Incumbents</topic><topic>Labor unions</topic><topic>Political behavior</topic><topic>Political candidates</topic><topic>Political power</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Public schools</topic><topic>Public sector</topic><topic>School districts</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Trade unions</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Voting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moe, Terry M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Journal of law, economics, & organization</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moe, Terry M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Political Control and the Power of the Agent</atitle><jtitle>Journal of law, economics, & organization</jtitle><addtitle>JLEO</addtitle><date>2006-04-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>29</epage><pages>1-29</pages><issn>8756-6222</issn><eissn>1465-7341</eissn><abstract>In the study of public bureaucracy, the relationship between political authorities and bureaucrats is commonly understood as one of principal and agent, and analysis centers on how the authorities can try to overcome the information asymmetry at the heart of this relationship—arising from the bureaucrats' expertise and other private information—to exercise a measure of control over their subordinates. In this standard view, information is the source of bureaucratic power. There is a second basis of bureaucratic power, however, that the literature overlooks. Precisely because the authorities are elected, bureaucrats can take political action—especially if organized by public sector unions—to influence who gets elected and what choices they make in office. This gives bureaucrats a political capacity to control their own controllers, putting the usual principal-agent relationship in a very different light. The purpose of this paper, then, is to make a case for the political power of the agent, and to argue for a reorientation of the current theory. In the empirical analysis, the argument is applied to the electoral behavior and impact of public school teachers and their unions—showing that they are quite active and influential in choosing the key authorities that are supposed to be governing them.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/jleo/ewj011</doi><tpages>29</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 8756-6222 |
ispartof | Journal of law, economics, & organization, 2006-04, Vol.22 (1), p.1-29 |
issn | 8756-6222 1465-7341 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1866650473 |
source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current) |
subjects | Boards of education Bureaucracy Bureaucrats Economics Economists Elections Electoral districts Government bureaucracy Incumbents Labor unions Political behavior Political candidates Political power Politics Power Public schools Public sector School districts Studies Teachers Trade unions United States Voting |
title | Political Control and the Power of the Agent |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T20%3A37%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Political%20Control%20and%20the%20Power%20of%20the%20Agent&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20law,%20economics,%20&%20organization&rft.au=Moe,%20Terry%20M.&rft.date=2006-04-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=29&rft.pages=1-29&rft.issn=8756-6222&rft.eissn=1465-7341&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jleo/ewj011&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3555032%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218913129&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3555032&rfr_iscdi=true |