Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T11:42:45.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential Responsiveness in the Bureaucracy: Views of Public Utility Regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

William Gormley ,
John Hoadley  and
Charles Williams
William Gormley
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
John Hoadley
Affiliation:
Duke University
Charles Williams
Affiliation:
University of Illinoisat Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To whom is the bureaucracy responsive? A study of public utility regulation in 12 states helps to answer that question. To assess potential responsiveness in the bureaucracy, we examine indicators of attitudinal concurrence. Whether we look at issue priorities or value priorities, public utility commissioners are more responsive to staff members and utility company executives than to governmental consumer advocates. However, bureaucratic responsiveness to citizens varies unexpectedly across stages of the policymaking process. Concurrence between commissioners and citizen activists is relatively high on issue priorities, relatively low on value priorities. Success at the agenda-setting stage does not guarantee success in policy formulation. In practice, agenda responsiveness may be little more than an exercise in symbolic politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 77 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 704 - 717
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1983

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

Aberbach, J., & Rockman, B. Administrators' beliefs about the role of the public: the case of American federal executives. Western Political Quarterly, 1978, 31, 502–522.Google Scholar
Alexander, T. The surge to deregulate electricity. Fortune, 07 13, 1981, pp. 98–105.Google Scholar
Allison, O. Essence of decision. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. Regulatory politics and electric utilities. Boston: Auburn House, 1981.Google Scholar
Aron, J. Citizen participation at government expense. Public Administration Review, 1979, 39, 477–485.Google Scholar
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 1962, 56, 947–952.Google Scholar
Bernstein, M. Regulating business by independent commission. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Cobb, R., & Elder, C. Participation in American politics: the dynamics of agenda building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Cole, R. Citizen participation and the urban policy process. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1974.Google Scholar
Crenson, M. The un-politics of air pollution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Davis, K. Discretionary justice: a preliminary inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Downs, A. Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresang, D. Ethnic politics, representative bureaucracy and development administration: the Zambian case. American Political Science Review, 1974, 68, 1665–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, M. The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Electric Power Research Institute. Reference manual and procedures for implementing PURPA. Palo Alto: Electric Utility Rate Design Study, 1979.Google Scholar
Eulau, H., & Karps, P. The puzzle of representation: specifying components of responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1977, 2, 233–254.Google Scholar
Friendly, H. The federal administrative agencies: the need for better definition of standards. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Gormley, W. Statewide remedies for public under-representation in regulatory proceedings. Public Administration Review, 1981, 41, 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gormley, W. The politics of public utility regulation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenstein, F. Personality and politics. Chicago: Markham, 1969.Google Scholar
Gruening, E. The public pays. New York: Vanguard, 1964.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. B. Participation, political structure, and concurrence. American Political Science Review, 1975 , 69, 1181–1199.Google Scholar
Ingram, H. et al. A policy approach to political representation: lessons from the four corners states. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Kranz, H. The participatory bureaucracy. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. Protest as a political resource. American Political Science Review, 1968, 62, 1144–1158.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. The end of liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton, 1969.Google Scholar
Marini, F. (Ed.). Toward a new public administration. Scranton, Pa.: Chandler, 1971.Google Scholar
McConnell, G. Private power and American democracy. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1966.Google Scholar
Meier, K. Representative bureaucracy: an empirical analysis. American Political Science Review, 1975, 69, 526–542.Google Scholar
Meier, K. & Nigro, L. Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: a study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review, 1976,36, 458–469.Google Scholar
Lynch, Merrill, Pierce, , Smith, Fenner &. Recent regulatory decisions and trends. New York: Merrill Lynch, 1980.Google Scholar
Miller, W., & Stokes, D. Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review, 1963, 57, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitnick, B. The political economy of regulation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. Maximum feasible misunderstanding. New York: Free Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Parenti, M. Power and pluralism: the view from the bottom. Journal of Politics, 1970, 32, 501–530.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Quirk, P. Industry influence in federal regulatory agencies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Redford, E. The regulatory process. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Rieselbach, L. (Ed.). People vs. government: the responsiveness of American institutions. Blooming-ton: Indiana University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Salamon, L., & Wamsley, G. In Rieselbach, L. (Ed.). People vs. government. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Salomon Brothers. State regulatory commission ranking. New York: Salomon Brothers, 1980.Google Scholar
Samuels, W. Consumerism and the public utility institution. Paper presented at the 12th annual conference of the Institute of Public Utilities, Williamsburg, Va., 12 2, 1980.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.Google Scholar
Schumaker, P., & Getter, R. Responsiveness bias in 51 American communities. American Journal of Political Science, 1977, 21, 247–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, W. & Weber, R. Policy responsiveness in the American states. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1974.Google Scholar
Simon, H. Administrative behavior. New York: Mac-millan, 1947.Google Scholar
Verba, S., & Nie, N. Participation in America: political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.Google Scholar
Weinstein, J. The corporate ideal in the liberal state: 1900–1918. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Weissberg, R. Public opinion and popular government. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hail, 1976.Google Scholar
Welch, F. X. Preparing for the utility rate case. Washington, D.C: Utilities Reports, 1954.Google Scholar
Zeigler, H., & Tucker, H. The quest for responsive government. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury, 1978.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.