Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-fnprw Total loading time: 0.269 Render date: 2022-08-19T01:20:30.039Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Strategies for Measuring Influence over State Agencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Nelson C. Dometrius
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
Brendan F. Burke
Affiliation:
Suffolk University
Deil S. Wright
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Abstract

In the summer 2006 edition of State Politics and Policy Quarterly, Michael Baranowski and Donald Gross examined two methods of measuring influence over state agency activities: freestanding versus paired comparison. Their analysis led them to conclude that the paired-comparison measures might be theoretically superior, but are often impractical. Using the American State Administrator Project (ASAP) surveys, we supplement Baranowski and Gross's analysis by identifying conditions that sometimes make freestanding instruments superior measures and, at other times, paired comparisons both superior and practical to use.

Type
The Practical Researcher
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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

Abney, Glenn, and Lauth, Thomas P.. 1983. “The Governor as Chief Administrator.” Public Administration Review 43(1):40–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abney, Glenn, and Lauth, Thomas P.. 1998. “The End of Executive Dominance in State Appropriations.” Public Administration Review 58(5):388–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baranowski, Michael, and Gross, Donald A.. 2006. “Influence over State Agency Activities: A Test of Two Survey-Based Measures.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 6:220–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyle, Thad L. 1999. “Governors.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 7th ed., eds. Gray, Virginia, Hanson, Russell L., and Jacob, Herbert. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Bowling, Cynthia J., and Wright, Deil S.. 1998. “Change and Continuity in State Administration: Administrative Leadership Across Four Decades.” Public Administration Review 58(5):429–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brudney, Jeffrey L., and Ted Herbert, F.. 1987. “State Agencies and Their Environments: Examining the Influence of Important External Actors.” Journal of Politics 49:186206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Brendan, and Wright, Deil S.. 2003. “Separation of Powers in the American States: Administrators' Alternative Perceptions of Institutional Influence over Agency Direction in the 1980s and 1990s.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Cho, Chung-Lae, and Wright, Deil S.. 2004. “The Devolution Revolution in Intergovernmental Relations in the 1990: Changes in Cooperative and Coercive State-National Relations as Perceived by State Administrators.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14:447–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of State Governments. 1998. The Book of the States, 1998–99. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
Cronin, Thomas. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dometrius, Nelson C. 2002. “Gubernatorial Popularity and Administrative Influence.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2:251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dometrius, Nelson C. 1979. “Measuring Gubernatorial Power.” Journal of Politics 41:589610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. Leiper. 1955. The Political Process: Executive Bureau-Legislative Committee Relations. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Carl J. 1950. Constitutional Government and Democracy. New York, NY: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Hebert, F. Ted, Brudney, Jeffrey L, and Wright, Deil S.. 1983. “Gubernatorial Influence and State Bureaucracy.” American Politics Quarterly 11:243–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks in the Executive Establishment.” In The New American Political System, ed. King, Anthony. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Kelleher, Christine A., and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “Who's Whispering in Your Ear? Measuring the Influence of Third Parties Over State Agency Decisions.” Political Research Quarterly 59:629–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, James D. 2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:327–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Miller, Cheryl M. 1987. “State Administrator Perceptions of the Policy Influence of Other Actors: Is Less Better?Public Administration Review 47:239–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Cheryl M., and Wright, Deil S.. 2002. “The Politics-Administration Continuum: Positive-Sum Patterns in Balancing Bureaucratic Initiative with Administrative Accountability.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall B., and Franklin, Grace A.. 1987. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, 4th ed. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Rourke, Francis E. 1984. Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Schneider, Saundra K., Jacoby, William G., and Coggburn, Jerrell D.. 1997. “The Structure of Bureaucratic Decisions in the American States.” Public Administration Review 57(3):240–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Dometrius, Nelson C.. 1988. “Governors as Chief Administrators: The Linkage Between Formal Powers and Informal Influence.” American Politics Quarterly 16:157–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Harold, ed. 1952. Public Administration and Policy Development: A Case Book. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Van Horn, Carl E. 2006. The State of the States, 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterman, Richard W., Hank, , Jenkins-Smith, C., and Silva, Carol L.. 1999. “The Expectations Gap Thesis: Public Attitudes toward and Incumbent President.” Journal of Politics 61:944–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterman, Richard W., and Rouse, Amelia. 1999. “The Determinants of the Perceptions of Political Control of the Bureaucracy and the Venues of Influence.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9(4):527–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Deil S. 1967. “Executive Leadership in State Administration.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 11:126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Deil S., and Cho, Chung-Lae. 2001. American State Administrators Project (ASAP) Overview: Major Features of the ASAP Surveys 1964–1998. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Odom Institute for Research in Social Science.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Strategies for Measuring Influence over State Agencies
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Strategies for Measuring Influence over State Agencies
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Strategies for Measuring Influence over State Agencies
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *