Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:45:02.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Do Interest Groups Contact Bureaucrats Rather than Politicians? Evidence on Fire Alarms and Smoke Detectors from Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2013

ETHAN SCHEINER ,
ROBERT PEKKANEN ,
MICHIO MURAMATSU  and
ELLIS KRAUSS
ETHAN SCHEINER
Affiliation:
Professor at the University of California at Davisescheiner@ucdavis.edu
ROBERT PEKKANEN
Affiliation:
Associate Professor at the University of Washingtonpekkanen@post.harvard.edu
MICHIO MURAMATSU
Affiliation:
Professor Emeritus at Kyoto Universitymm400103@nifty.com
ELLIS KRAUSS
Affiliation:
Professor at the University of California at San Diegoekrauss@ucsd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What determines whether interest groups choose to contact politicians or bureaucrats? Despite the importance of this question for policymaking, democracy, and some prominent principal-agent understandings of politics, it is relatively unexplored in the literature. We argue that government stability plays a major part in interest groups’ decisions. That is, central to interest groups’ decisions is their assessment of the likelihood that politicians currently in power will continue to be in the future. We deduce logical, but totally contrasting hypotheses, about how interest groups lobby under such conditions of uncertainty and then test these using a heteroskedastic probit model that we apply to a unique longitudinal survey of interest groups in Japan. We find that when it is unclear if the party controlling the government will maintain power in the future, interest groups are more likely to contact the bureaucracy. When it is believed that the party in power will retain control for a considerable period, interest groups are more inclined to contact politicians. In addition, during times of government uncertainty, interest groups that are supportive of the governing party (or parties) are more likely to contact politicians and those that are less supportive will be more likely to contact bureaucrats.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 283 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvarez, R. Michael and Brehm, John (1995), ‘American Ambivalence toward Abortion Policy: A Heteroskedastic Probit Method for Assessing Conflicting Values’, American Journal of Political Science, 39: 1055–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael and Brehm, John (1997), ‘Are Americans Ambivalent toward Racial Policies?’, American Journal of Political Science, 41: 345–74.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael and Brehm, John (1998), ‘Speaking in Two Voices: American Equivocation about the Internal Revenue Service’, American Journal of Political Science, 42: 418–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael and Brehm, John (2002), Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information, and American Public Opinion, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amyx, Jennifer A. (2004), Japan's Financial Crisis: Institutional Rigidity and Reluctant Change, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David and Wright, John R. (1994), ‘Counteractive Lobbying’, American Journal of Political Science, 38: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David and Wright, John R. (1996), ‘Theory and Evidence for Counteractive Lobbying’, American Journal of Political Science 40: 543–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank and Leech, Beth L. (1996), ‘The Multiple Ambiguities of Counteractive Lobbying’, American Journal of Political Science, 40: 521–42.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan and Moe, Terry M. (1985), ‘An Adaptive Model of Bureaucratic Politics’, American Political Science Review, 79: 755–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., Gailmard, Sean, and Patty, John Wiggs (2005), ‘Whose Ear to Bend? Information Sources and Venue Choice in Policy-Making’, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1: 139–69.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D. (1993), Agendas and Instability in American Politics, 2nd edition 2009, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brehm, John and Gates, Scott (1997), Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
de Figueiredo, Rui J.P. Jr. (2002), ‘Electoral Competition, Political Uncertainty, and Policy Insulation’, American Political Science Review, 96: 321–33.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. (1993), Econometric Analysis, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Greene, Steven and Heberlig, Eric S. (2002), ‘Finding the Weak Link: The Choice of Institutional Venues by Interest Groups’, The American Review of Politics, 23: 19–38.Google Scholar
Holyoke, Thomas (2003), ‘Choosing Battlegrounds: Interest Group Lobbying Across Multiple Venues’, Political Research Quarterly, 56: 325–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D. and Lupia, Arthur (2001), ‘Cabinet Instability and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies’, American Journal of Political Science, 45 (1): 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D. and Shipan, Charles R. (2002), Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kato, Junko (2002), ‘Politicians, Bureaucrats, and Interest Groups in Japan: Transformation from One-Party Predominance to Not?’, in Loewenberg, Gerhard, Squire, Peverill, and Kiewiet, D. Roderick (eds.), Legislatures: Comparative Perspectives on Representative Assemblies, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 314–28.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke and Park, David K. (ND), ‘Ambivalent about Ambivalence: A Re-examination of Heteroskedastic Probit Models’, Unpublished manuscript, Penn State University.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1991), The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Chalmers (1982), MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1994), ‘Designing Bureaucratic Accountability’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 57: 91–126.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R. (1987), ‘Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control’, Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 3 (Fall): 243–77.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D. and Schwartz, Thomas (1987), ‘Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms’, in McCubbins, Mathew and Sullivan, Terry (eds.), Congress: Structure and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 426–40.Google Scholar
Milbrath, Lester (1963), The Washington Lobbyists, Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. (1989), ‘The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure’, in Chubb, John E. and Peterson, Paul E. (eds.), Can the Government Govern? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. (1990a), ‘The Politics of Structural Choice: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy’, in Williamson, Oliver E. (ed.), Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. (1990b), ‘Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 6: 213–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. and Caldwell, Michael (1994), ‘The Institutional Foundations of Democratic Government: A Comparison of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 150: 171–95.Google Scholar
Muramatsu, Michio, Ito, Mitsutoshi, and Tsujinaka, Yutaka (1986), Sengo Nihon no Aatsuryoku Dantai [Pressure Groups in Postwar Japan], Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Shinposha.Google Scholar
Niskanen, William A. Jr (1971), Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
Naoi, Megumi and Krauss, Ellis (2009), ‘Who Lobbies Whom? Special Interest Politics under Alternative Electoral Systems’, American Journal of Political Science, 53 (4) (October): 874–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okimoto, Daniel I. (1989), Between MITI and the Market: Japanese Industrial Policy for High Technology, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Pempel, T.J. (1974), ‘The Bureaucratization of Policymaking in Postwar Japan’, American Journal of Political Science, 18: 647–64.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, J. Mark and Rosenbluth, Frances McCall (1993), Japan's Political Marketplace, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Waltenburg, Eric N. (2002), Choosing Where to Fight: Organized Labor and the Modern Regulatory State, 1948–1987, Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar