Alexander, Lamar and James, H. Thomas. 1987. The Nation’s Report Card: Improving the Assessment of Student Achievement. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.Google Scholar

Allen, Nancy L., Donoghue, John R., and Schoeps, Terry L.. 2001. The NAEP 1998 Technical Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar

Ansell, Christopher K. 2011. Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S.. 1962. Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balla, Steven J. 1998. Administrative Procedures and Political Control of the Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 92 (3): 663–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balla, Steven J. and Wright, John R.. 2000. Can Advisory Committees Facilitate Congressional Oversight of the Bureaucracy? In Congress on Display, Congress at Work, Bianco, William T. (ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 167–187.Google Scholar

Balla, Steven J. and Wright, John R. 2001. Interest Groups, Advisory Committees, and Congressional Control of the Bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 799–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balogh, Brian. 1991. Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945–1975. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baram, Michael, Flannery, Ellen, Davis, Patricia, and Marchant, Gary. 2000. Symposium: Regulatory and Liability Considerations. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 6: 86.Google Scholar

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bawn, Kathleen. 1995. Political Control versus Expertise: Congressional Choices about Administrative Procedures. American Political Science Review 89 (1): 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bertelli, Anthony and Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2006. Madison’s Managers: Public Administration and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Blankshain, Jessica, Carpenter, Daniel P., and Moffitt, Susan L.. “R&D Abandonment in Regulatory Equilibrium: Evidence from Asset Price Shocks Induced by FDA Decisions.” Unpublished paper. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Bohman, James. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bok, Sissela. 1983. Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. New York: Random House, Inc.Google Scholar

Bombardier, Claire, Laine, Loren, Reicin, Alise, Shapiro, Deborah, Burgos-Vargas, Ruben, et al. 2000. Comparison of Upper Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Rofecoxib and Naproxen in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. New England Journal of Medicine 343: 1520–1528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bourque, Mary Lyn. 2004. A History of the National Assessment Governing Board. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 201–231.Google Scholar

Bowles, Chester. 1945. OPA Volunteers: Big Democracy in Action. Public Administration Review 4 (5): 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brehm, John and Gates, Scott. 1997. Working, Shirking and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, David S. 1954. The Public Advisory Board in the Federal Government. Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest/UMI.Google Scholar

Brown, Mark B. 2008. Fairly Balanced: The Politics of Representation on Government Advisory Committees. Political Research Quarterly 61 (4): 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brudney, Jeffrey and England, Robert. 1983. Toward a definition of the co-production concept. Public Administration Review 43 (1): 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cannan, R. Keith. 1968. Status of the Drug Efficacy Study of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law Journal (January): 32–35.Google Scholar

Cardozo, Michael. 1981. The Federal Advisory Committee Act in Operation. Administrative Law Review 33 (1): 1–62.Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Branch Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P. 2002. Groups, the Media, Agency Waiting Costs and FDA Drug Approval. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 490–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P. 2004. Protection without Capture: Product Approval by a Politically Responsive, Learning Regulator. American Political Science Review 98 (4):613–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P. 2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P., Chattopadhyay, Jacqueline, Moffitt, Susan, and Nall, Clayton. 2012. The Complications of Controlling Agency Time Discretion: FDA Review Deadlines and Postmarket Safety. American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 98–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, Daniel P. and Krause, George A.. 2012. Reputation and Public Administration. Public Administration Review 72 (1): 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carr, Peggy. 2004. Preface. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. vii–xi.Google Scholar

Clemens, Elisabeth S. 2006. Lineages of the Rube Goldberg State: Building and Blurring Public Programs, 1990–1940. In Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, Shapiro, Ian, Skowronek, Stephen, and Galvin, Daniel (eds.). New York: New York University Press, pp. 187–215.Google Scholar

Coglianese, Cary. 1997. Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking. Duke Law Journal 46 (6): 1255–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coglianese, Cary, Zeckhauser, Richard, and Parson, Edward. 2004. Seeking Truth for Power: Informational Strategy and Regulatory Policymaking. Minnesota Law Review 89: 277–341.Google Scholar

Cohen, David K. 1982. Policy and Organization: The Impact of State and Federal Educational Policy on School Governance. Harvard Educational Review 52(4): 474–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, David K. and Spillane, James P.. 1992. Policy and Practice: The Relations Between Governance and Instruction. Review of Research in Education 18: 3–49.Google Scholar

Cohen, David K. and Moffitt, Susan L.. 2009. The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation Fix the Schools?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croley, Steven P. and Funk, William F.. 1997. The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Good Government. Yale Journal on Regulation 14: 451–557.Google Scholar

Cronbach, Lee J. 2004. An Interview with Lee Cronbach. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 139–153.Google Scholar

Cronin, Thomas E. and Thomas, Norman C.. 1971. Federal Advisory Processes: Advice and Discontent. Science 26 (February): 771–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crout, J. Richard. 1974. In Praise of the Lowly Package Insert. Food, Drug, Cosmetic Law Journal 29: 139–145.Google Scholar

Crozier, Michel. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G.. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Derthick, Martha. 1979. Policymaking for Social Security. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, John 1956. The School and Society and the Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Dow, Peter B. 1991. Schoolhouse Politics: Lessons from the Sputnik Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eldridge, Marie D. 1990. The Status of Advisory Committees to the Federal Statistical Agencies. The American Statistician 44 (2): 154–162.Google Scholar

Elliott, Emerson, and Phillips, Gary. 2004. A View from the NCES. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 233–249.Google Scholar

Elmore, Richard. 1979–1980. Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions. Political Science Quarterly 94 (4): 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Epstein, David and O’Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Esterling, Kevin. 2004. The Political Economy of Expertise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farley, Dixie. 1988. Getting Outside Advice for the Close Calls. New Drug Development in the United States. FDA Consumer Special Report.

Feldman, Martha and Khademian, Anne M.. 2007. The Role of the Public Manager in Inclusion: Creating Communities of Participation. Governance 20 (2): 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, Martha, Khademian, Anne, and Quick, Kathy. 2009. Ways of Knowing, Inclusive Management, and Promoting Democratic Engagement: Introduction to the Special Issue. International Public Management Journal 12 (2): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiorina, Morris P. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, Robert S. 1978. Representation in Regulatory Decision-Making: Scientific, Industrial and Consumer Inputs to the FDA. Public Administration Review 38 (3): 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fung, Archon and Wright, Erik Olin. 2001. Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Politics and Society 29 (1): 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fung, Archon. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Fung, Archon 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review 66: 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gailmard, Sean and Patty, John W.. 2012. Learning While Governing: Expertise and Accountability in the Executive Branch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Galley, Michelle. 2001. Governing Board Considers Scrapping Long-Term NAEP. Education Week 21 (13): 22.Google Scholar

Garfield, Harry. 1924. Recent Political Developments: Progress or Change?American Political Science Review 18 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilford, Dorothy. 2004. NAEP and the US Office of Education, 1971–1974. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 165–183.Google Scholar

Gill, Norman N. 1940. Permanent Advisory Committees in the Federal Government. Journal of Politics 2 (4): 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golden, Marissa Martino. 2000. What Motivates Bureaucrats? Politics and Administration During the Reagan Years. New York:Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

GormleyJr., William T. 1983. The Politics of Public Utility Regulation. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

GormleyJr., William T. and Balla, Steven J.. 2007. Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and Performance. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar

Grant, W. Vance. 1993. Statistics in the US Department of Education: Highlights from the past 120 years. In 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait. Snyder, Thomas D. (ed.). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, William, Garet, Michael S., and Solomon, Ellen R.. 1977. Measuring Educational Progress: A Study of the National Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar

Gusmano, Michael K. 2014. FDA Decisions and Public Deliberation: Challenges and Opportunities. Public Administration Review 73 (51): S115–S126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Gardiner and Koli, Eric. 2005. “Lucrative Drug, Danger Signal and the FDA.” New York Times, June 10.

Hazlett, J. A. 1974. A History of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1963–1974. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest/UMI.

Heclo, Hugh. 1978. Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In The New American Political System, King, Anthony (ed.). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, pp. 87–124.Google Scholar

Heimann, C. F. Larry. 1997. Acceptable Risks: Politics, Policy and Risky Technologies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Huber, John and Shipan, Charles R.. 2002. Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huber, John and McCarty, Nolan. 2004. Bureaucratic Capacity, Delegation, and Political Reform. American Political Science Review 98 (3): 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hutt, Peter Barton. 1983. Investigations and reports respecting FDA regulation of new drugs (Part 1). Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 33 (5): 539–540.Google Scholar

Institute of Education Sciences. 2007. Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards onto the NAEP Scales. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar

Institute of Medicine. 2007. The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, Julie Roy. 1978. Education for Children of the Poor: A Study of the Origins and Implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar

Jennings, John F. 1991. Chapter 1: A View from Congress. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 13 (4): 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds). 2004. The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Kaitin, Kenneth I.Melville, Ann, and Morris, Betsy. 1989. FDA Advisory Committees and the New Drug Approval Process. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 29: 886–890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kanthak, Kristin and Krause, George A.. 2012. The Diversity Paradox: Political Parties, Legislatures and the Organizational Foundations of Representation in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Karty, Kevin D. 2002. Closure and Capture in Federal Advisory Committees. Business and Politics 4(2): 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaufman, Herbert. 1981. The Administrative Behavior of Federal Bureau Chiefs. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar

Keiser, Lael R., Wilkins, Vicky M., Meier, Kenneth J., and Holland, Catherine A.. 2002. Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context and Representative Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 96 (3): 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keppel, Francis. 1966. The Necessary Revolution in American Education. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.Google Scholar

Kerwin, Cornelius. 2003. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Public Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar

Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Kluempke, Gerald. 1976. A Descriptive Analysis of the Attitudes, Make-Up, Function, and Utilization of Advisory Councils of the U.S. Department of Education. Doctoral Dissertation, George Washington University. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest/UMI.Google Scholar

Knippenberg, Daan van and Schippers, Michaéla C.. 2007. Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 515–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Krause, George A. 2003. Coping with Uncertainty: Analyzing Risk Propensities of SEC Budgetary Decisions, 1949–1997. American Political Science Review (97) 1: 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krause, George A. and Corder, J. Kevin. 2007. Explaining Bureaucratic Optimism: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Executive Agency Macroeconomic Forecasts. American Political Science Review 101 (1): 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kursh, Harry. 1965. The United States Office of Education. Philadelphia: Chilton Company.Google Scholar

Kwak, James. 2013. Cultural Capture and the Financial Crisis. In Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It, Carpenter, Daniel and Moss, David (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–98.Google Scholar

Langbein, Laura. 2002. Responsive Bureaus, Equity and Regulatory Negotiation. Journal of Public Policy Analysis and Management 21 (3): 446–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lasser, Karen E., Allen, Paul D., Woolhandler, Steffie J., Himmelstein, David U., Wolfe, Sidney M., et al. 2002. Timing of New Black Box Warnings and Withdrawals for Prescription Medications. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 2215–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Laugesen, Miriam J. 2013. Policy Complexity and Professional Capture in Federal Rulemaking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 31–September 2, Chicago, IL.

Laugesen, Miriam. J., Wada, Roy, and Chen, Eric M.. 2012. In Setting Doctors’ Medicare Fees, CMS Almost Always Accepts the Relative Value Update Panel’s Advice on Work Values. Health Affairs 31 (5): 965–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lavertu, Stéphane, Walters, Daniel E., and Weimer, David L.. 2012. Scientific Expertise and the Balance of Interests: MEDCAC and Medicare Coverage Decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (1): 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lavertu, Stéphane and Weimer, David L.. 2011. Federal Advisory Committees, Policy Expertise, and the Approval of Drugs and Medical Devices at the FDA. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2): 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann, Irvin J. 2004. The Genesis of NAEP. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp.25–92.Google Scholar

Leiserson, Avery. 1942. Administrative Regulation: A Study in Representation of Interests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Levine, Daniel B. 1986. Creating a Center for Education Statistics: A Time for Action. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, David E. 2003. Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design: Political Insulation in the United States Government Bureaucracy, 1947–1997. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, David E. 2008. The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindblom, Charles. 1977. Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar

Lindblom, Charles and Cohen, David K.. 1979. Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Linn, Robert L. 2004. The Influence of External Evaluations. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 291–308.Google Scholar

Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Lo, Bernard and Field, Marilyn J.. 2009. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education and Practice. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.Google Scholar

Lurie, Peter et al. 2006. Financial Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Voting Patterns at Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee Meetings. Journal of the American Medical Association 295 (16): 1921–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mansbridge, Jane J. 1983. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mansbridge, Jane J. 1992. A Deliberative Theory of Interest Representation. In The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed, Petracca, Mark P. (ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 32–57.Google Scholar

Maor, Moshe. 2010. Organizational Reputation and Jurisdictional Claims: The Case of the US Food and Drug Administration. Governance 23 (1): 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maor, Moshe, Gilad, Sharon, and Bloom, Pazit Ben-Nun. 2013. Organizational Reputation, Regulatory Talk, and Strategic Silence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (3): 581–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

March, James G. 1999. The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Martin, Wayne. 2004. NAEP from Three Different Perspectives. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.Google Scholar

McCarty, Nolan. 2013. Complexity, Capacity and Capture. In Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It, Carpenter, Daniel and Moss, David (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99–123.Google Scholar

McCubbins, Matthew and Schwartz, Thomas. 1984. Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols vs. Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCubbins, Matthew, Noll, Roger, and Weingast, Barry. 1987. Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Control. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 3 (2): 243–277.Google Scholar

McCubbins, Matthew, Noll, Roger, and Weingast, Barry 1989. Structure and Process, Policy and Politics: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies. Virginia Law Review 75: 431–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDonald, Jason A. 2010. Limitation Riders and Congressional Influence over Bureaucratic Policy Decisions. American Political Science Review 104 (4): 766–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDonnell, Lorraine. 2004. Politics, Persuasion and Educational Testing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

McNollGast. 1999. The Political Origins of the Administrative Procedures Act. Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations 15(1):180–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meier, Kenneth J. 1993. Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Meier, Kenneth J. and Bohte, John. 2007. Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Meier, Kenneth J., Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, Wrinkle, Robert D., and Polinard, J. L.. 2005. Structural Choices and Representational Biases: The Post-Election Color of Representation. American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 758–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meier, Kenneth J. and O’Toole, Laurence J.. 2006. Bureaucracy in a Democratic State: A Governance Perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Messick, Samuel, Beaton, Albert, and Lord, Frederic. 1983. National Assessment of Educational Progress Reconsidered: A New Design for a New Era. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Moe, Terry M. 1987. Interests, Institutions and Positive Theory: The Politics of the NLRB. Studies in American Political Development 2: 236–299.CrossRef

Moe, Terry M. 1990. The Politics of Structural Choice: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy. In Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond, Williamson, Oliver E. (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 116–153.Google Scholar

Moe, Terry M. 2005. Power and Political Institutions. Perspectives on Politics 3(2): 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moffitt, Susan L. 2010. Promoting Agency Reputation through Public Advice: Advisory Committee Use in the FDA. Journal of Politics 72 (3): 880–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moffitt, Susan L. 2012. The Policy Impact of Public Advice: The Effects of Advisory Committee Transparency on Product Safety. In Regulatory Breakdown: The Crisis of Confidence in U.S. Regulation, Coglianese, Cary (ed.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 180–199.Google Scholar

Monsees, Carl Henry. 1943. Industry Advisory Committees in the War Agencies. Public Administration Review 3 (3): 254–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Monsees, Carl H. 1944. Industry-Government Cooperation: A Study of the Participation of Advisory Committees in Public Administration. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar

Morgan, Kimberly and Campbell, Andrea. 2011. The Delegated Welfare State: Medicare, Markets, and the Governance of Social Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morrato, Elaine H. and Ling, S.. 2012. The FDA Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee: A Case Study Evaluation of Meeting Frequency, Content and Outcomes Before and After FDAAA. Medical Care 50 (11): 970–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morrisett, Lloyd. 2004. An Interview with Lloyd Morrisett. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp.122–132.Google Scholar

Mosher, Frederic A. 2004. An Age of Innocence. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 93–111.Google Scholar

Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. 1998. Secrecy: The American Experience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, Debabrata, Nissen, Steven E., and Topol, Eric J.. 2001. Risk of Cardiovascular Events Associated with Selective COX-2 Inhibitors. Journal of the American Medical Association 286 (8): 954–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mullis, Ina V. S., Dossey, John A., Owen, Eugene H., and Phillips, Gary W.. 1993. NAEP 1992 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States: Data from the National and Trial State Assessments. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar

Munger, Frank J. and Fenno, Richard F.. 1962. National Politics and Federal Aid to Education. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar

Nathan, Richard P. 1983. The Administrative Presidency. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar

National Center for Education Statistics. 1999. Directory of NAEP Publications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar

Neustadt, Richard E. and Fineberg, Harvey V.. 1978. The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Newman, William H. 1946. Government-Industry Cooperation that Works. Public Administration Review 6 (3): 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nissen, Steven E. 2006. ADHD Drugs and Cardiovascular Risk. New England Journal of Medicine 354: 1445–1448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Olson, Lynn. 2002a. Board Acts to Bring NAEP in Line with ESEA. Education Week 21 (38): 22–24.Google Scholar

Olson, Lynn 2002b. Want to Confirm State Test Scores? It’s Complex, But NAEP Can Do It. Education Week 21 (26): 1, 10–11.Google Scholar

Olson, Lynn 2005. All in the Family: Another Bush Helps Shape Federal Policy on Student Testing. Education Week 24 (23): 32.Google Scholar

Osborne, David and Gaebler, Ted. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Osborne, Sean P. 2010. Delivering Public Services: Time for a New Theory?Public Management Review 12 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Page, Scott E. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Page, Scott E. 2008. Uncertainty, Difficulty and Complexity. Journal of Theoretical Politics 20 (2): 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Patashnik, Eric. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens after Major Policy Changes Are Enacted. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Pateman, Carol. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pellegrino, James W., Jones, Lee R., and Mitchell, Karen J. (eds.). 1999. Grading the Nation’s Report Card: Evaluating NAEP and Transforming the Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Petracca, Mark P. 1986. Federal Advisory Committees, Interest Groups and the Administrative State. Congress & The Presidency 13(1):83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salancik, Gerald R.. 2003. The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Pham-Kanter, Genevieve. 2013. Financial Conflicts of Interest in FDA Advisory Committees. Paper Presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association, June, Boston, MA.

Pines, Wayne L. and Cotton, Mary Ann N.. 1997. Preparing for an FDA Advisory Committee Meeting. Drug Information Journal 31: 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pressman, Jeffrey and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1984. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Price, Don K. 1962. Government and Science: Their Dynamic Relation in American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Quirk, Paul J. 1980. Food and Drug Administration. In The Politics of Regulation, Wilson, James Q. (ed.). New York: Basic Books, pp. 191–235.Google Scholar

Redford, Emmette S. 1969. Democracy in the Administrative State. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rettig, Richard, Earley, Laurence E., and Merrill, Richard A. (eds.). 1992. Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committees. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, Alasdair. 2006. Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Patrick S. 2006. FEMA and the Prospects for Reputation-Based Autonomy. Studies in American Political Development 20 (1): 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rothman, Robert. 1988. Democrats Seek to Prevent 3 from Joining NAEP Panel. Education Week, October 12.

Rothman, Robert. 1990. 75 Groups Sound Warning over Expansion of Assessment. Education Week, June 20.

Rourke, Francis E. 1961. Secrecy and Publicity: Dilemmas of Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Rourke, Francis E. (ed.). 1965. Bureaucratic Power in National Politics. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Rourke, Francis E. 1976. Bureaucracy, Politics and Public Policy, 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar

Ryan, Ann Marie. 2007. Keeping Every Catholic Child in a Catholic School During the Great Depression, 1933–1939. Catholic Education 11 (2): 157–175.Google Scholar

Salamon, Lester M. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Thompson Learning.Google Scholar

Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen. 1990. Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools. Journal of Politics 52 (2): 510–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schuck, Peter H. and Kochevar, Steven. 2014. Reg Neg Redux: The Career of a Procedural Reform. Theoretical Inquiries in Law; Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 308; Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 478.Google Scholar

Scott, W. Richard. 1992. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Selden, Ramsay. 2004. Making NAEP State-By-State. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 195–199.Google Scholar

Sellers, Jeffrey M. 2011. State-Society Relations. In The Sage Handbook of Governance, Bevir, Mark (ed.). London: Sage, pp. 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selznik, Philip. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organizations: Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Simon, Herbert A. 1965. The Shape of Automation for Men and Management. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Simon, Herbert A., Smithburg, Donald W., and Thompson, Victor A.. 1950. Public Administration. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar

Skowronek, Stephen. 1982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Bruce L. R. 1992. The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Steffes, Tracy. 2012. School, Society and the State: A New Education to Govern Modern America, 1890–1940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steinbrook, Robert. 2004. Science, Politics and Federal Advisory Committees. New England Journal of Medicine 350: 1454–1460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stone, Deborah. 2002. The Policy Paradox. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Thomas, John Clayton. 2012. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Engaging the Public in Public Management. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar

Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar

Truman, David B. 1962. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar

Urfalino, Philippe. 2005. Le Grand Méchant Loup Pharmaceutique. Paris: Les éditions Textuel.Google Scholar

Urfalino, Philippe Forthcoming. Secret-Public Voting in FDA Advisory Committees. In Private Public Debate and Voting, Elster, Jon (ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. 1955. Interim report of the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on the Business Advisory Council, 84th Congress, 1st session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1956. Committee Print, Replies from Executive Departments and Federal Agencies to Inquiry Regarding Use of Advisory Committees, January 1, 1953–January 1, 1956, Part 3: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, June 5, 1956. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1957. House Report 85–576, Amending the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946, and for Other Purposes, 85th Congress, 1st session, June 17, 1957. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1970. House Report No. 91–1731, The Role and Effectiveness of Federal Advisory Committees, Committee on Government Operations, 43rd Report, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, December 11, 1970. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1971. Advisory Committees, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations on HR. 4383, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, November 4, 1971. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1972. House Report No. 92–1017, Federal Advisory Committee Standards Act, Committee on Government Operations, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, April 25, 1972. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1972. US Government Information Policies and Practices – Public Access to Information from Executive Branch Advisory Groups, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, June 6, 8, and 19, 1972, part 9. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1974. Use of Advisory Committees by the Food and Drug Administration, Hearings before the Committee of Government Operations, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, March 6, 7, 8, 12, 13; April 30; May 21, 1974. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1975. Use of Advisory Committees by the Food and Drug Administration Part 2, Hearings before the Committee of Government Operations, 94th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, May 9 and 12, 1975. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1976. House Report No 94–787, Use of Advisory Committees by the Food and Drug Administration, Committee on Government Operations, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, January 26, 1976. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate. 1970. Advisory Committees, Hearings on S.3067 before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, October 6 and 7, 1970, part 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate 1970. Advisory Committees, Hearings on S.3067 before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, October 8 and 9, 1970, part 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate 1970. Advisory Committees, Hearings on S.3067 before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, December 8, 10, 17, 1970, part 3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate 1971. Advisory Committees, Hearings on S.1637 before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations, S.1964, and S.2064, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, June 10 and 11, 1971 part 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate 1971. Advisory Committees, Hearings on S.1637 before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations S.1964, and S.2064, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, June 15, 17, 22 and July 13, 27, 28, 1971, part 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate 1971. Advisory Committees, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations on S.1637, S.1964, and S.2064, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, October 6, 7, 8, and 11, 1971, part 3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate 1972. Senate Report No. 92–1098, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Committee on Government Operations, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, September 7, 1972. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate 1974. Advisory Committees, Oversight Hearings before the Subcommittee on Budgeting, Management and Expenditures of the Committee on Government Operations on P.L. 92–463, 93rd Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions, November 29, December 13, 1973; February 5, 1974. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate 1974. Examination of the Pharmaceutical Industry 73–74, Joint Hearings before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Committee on the Judiciary, 93rd Congress, 1st and 2nd Sessions, Part 7, August 15–16, 1974. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate 2004. FDA, Merck, and Vioxx: Putting Patient Safety First? Hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance, part 1, 108th Congress, 2nd Session, November 18, 2004. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

U.S. Congressional Research Service. 2008. Advisory Committees: A Primer, A Report by Wendy Ginsburg. Washington, DC: U.S. Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar

U.S. Congressional Research Service 2010. Advisory Committees: A Primer, A Report by Wendy Ginsburg. Washington, DC: U.S. Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General. 2002. FDA Review Process for New Drug Applications. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Labor. 1953. Womanpower Committees During World War II, Women’s Bureau Bulletin 244. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1976. The National Assessment of Educational Progress: Its Results Need to be Made More Useful. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 1977. Better Evaluations Needed to Weed Out Useless Federal Advisory Committees. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 1986. The Condition of Information on Education. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 1988. Federal Advisory Committee Act: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Affairs, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 1993. Educational Achievement Standards: NAGB’s Approach Yields Misleading Interpretations. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 1997. Federal Advisory Committee Act: Overview of Advisory Committees Since 1993, Statement of L. Nye Stevens. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 1998a. Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of Committee Members and Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues. Washington, DC:GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 1998b. Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration Oversight of Advisory Committees. Washington, DC:GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 1998c. Federal Advisory Act: Advisory Committee Process Appears to be Working, but Some Concerns Exist, Statement by L. Nye Stevens. Washington, DC:GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 2001. EPA’s Science Advisory Board Panels: Improved Policies and Procedures Needed to Ensure Independence and Balance. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Accounting Office 2004. Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. General Services Administration. 2007. The Federal Advisory Committee Act: An Overview. Washington, DC: GSA.Google Scholar

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2006. Drug Safety: Improvement Needed in FDA’s Postmarket Decision-Making and Oversight Process. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. Government Accountability Office 2008a. Federal Advisory Committee Act: Issues Related to the Independence and Balance of Advisory Committees, Statement from Robin M. Nazarro Washington, DC: GAO.

U.S. Government Accountability Office 2008b. FDA Advisory Committees: Process for Recruiting Members and Evaluating Potential Conflicts of Interest. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar

U.S. Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1958. Biennial Survey of Education in the United States: Statistical Summary of Education 1953–54. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Van Meter, Donald S. and Van Horn, Carl E.. 1975. The Policy Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework. Administration & Society 6 (4): 445–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Viadero, Debra. 1994. House Subcommittee Approves Proposal to Abolish NAEP Board. Education Week, February 9.

Vinovskis, Maris. 1998. Overseeing the Nation’s Report Card: The Creation and Evolution of the National Assessment Governing Board. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.Google Scholar

Wagner, Wendy. 2013. The Participation-Centered Model Meets Administrative Practice. Wisconsin Law Review 2013 (2): 671–692.Google Scholar

Walker, Jack L. 1977. Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection. British Journal of Political Science 7 (4): 423–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warren, Kenneth F., 2004. Administrative Law in the Political System, 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Weaver, R. Kent. 1986. The Politics of Blame Avoidance. Journal of Public Policy 6 (4): 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weber, Edward P. and Khademian, Anne. 2008. Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. Public Administration Review 68 (2): 334–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weber, Max. 1946. Bureaucracy. In Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Gerth, Hans Heinrich (ed.) and Mills, C. Wright (trans.). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 146–244.Google Scholar

Weber, Max 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. London: Free Press of Glencoe, Collier-MacMillian Ltd.Google Scholar

Weber, Max 1965. Essays on Bureaucracy. In Bureaucratic Power in National Politics, Rourke, Francis E (ed.). Boston: Little, Brown and Company, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar

Weick, Karl. 1976. Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiss, Janet A. 2002. Public Information. In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, Salamon, Lester M. (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–254.Google Scholar

Weiss, Janet A. and Gruber, Judith. 1984. Using Knowledge for Control in Fragmented Policy Arenas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 3 (2): 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiss, Janet A. and Tschirhart, Mary. 1994. Public Information Campaigns as Policy Instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13 (1): 82–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

White, Eileen. 1981. Reagan Weighing Much Deeper Education Cuts and Faster Dismantling of Federal Department. Education Week, September 28.

White, Eileen 1983. Better Proposal Said to Win Assessment Project for ETS. Education Week, March 2.

Whyte, Warren E. 1970. Effectiveness of the NAS-NRC Drug Effectiveness Study. Food, Drug, Cosmetic Law Journal (February): 91–100.Google Scholar

Wilensky, Harold. 1969. Organizational Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Wolanin, Thomas. 1975. Presidential Advisory Commissions. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Womer, Frank. 1968. What Is National Assessment?Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar

Yackee, Jason Webb and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. A Bias Toward Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the Bureaucracy. Journal of Politics 68 (1): 128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yackee, Susan Webb. Forthcoming. Lifecycle of Medical Product Rules Issued by the Food and Drug Administration. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.

Zegart, Amy B. 2004. Blue Ribbons, Black Boxes: Toward a Better Understanding of Presidential Commissions. Presidential Studies Quarterly 34 (2): 366–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

An Act to Establish a Department of Education, March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 434.

Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, P.L. 59–384, 34 Stat. 768.

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, P.L. 75–717, 52 Stat. 1040.

The Administrative Procedure Act, enacted June 11, 1946, P.L. 79–404, 60 Stat. 237.

Harris Kefauver Act, Drug Amendments of 1962, P.L. 87–781, 76 Stat. 780.

The Freedom of Information Act of 1966, P.L. 89-487, 80 Stat. 250.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, P.L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770.

An Act to Extend and Amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, P.L. 93–380, 88 Stat. 556–558.

Education Amendment of 1978, P.L.95–561, 92 Stat. 2353.

Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988, P.L. 100–297, 102 Stat. 347.

Improving America’s Schools Act, October 20, 1994, P.L. 103–382, 108 Stat. 4041.

Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997, P.L. 105–115, 111 Stat. 2296.

Food and Drug Administration Amendments of 2007, P.L. 110–85, 121 Stat. 823.

21 CFR 14.80, revised as of April 1, 2013.

Cronbach, Lee 2004. An Interview with Lee Cronbach. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 139–153.Google Scholar

Crout, J. Richard. Oral History, History of the Food and Drug Administration, Interview, November 12, 1997.

Finn, Chester E. Jr. 2004. An Interview with Chester E. Finn, Jr. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 251–265.Google Scholar

Gardner, John. 2004. An Interview with John Gardner. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 113–122.Google Scholar

Jennings, John F. 2004. An Interview with John F. Jennings. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Press, pp. 278–289.Google Scholar

Morrisett, Lloyd. 2004. An Interview with Lloyd Morrisett. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 122–132Google Scholar

Smith, Marshall S. 2004. An Interview with Marshall S. Smith. What NAEP Really Could Do. In The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives, Jones, Lyle V. and Olkin, Ingram (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, pp. 266–277.Google Scholar