Institutions & Groups in Political Development: Participation in the Bureaucracy

• In Event: Formal Models of Bureaucratic and Judicial Politics

Abstract

This paper contrasts two alternative approaches to modeling institutional development: an "institution-based" approach and a "group-based" approach. We demonstrate the distinction between these alternative modes of explanation by presenting two formal models of a specific, substantively important case: the transformation of the federal bureaucracy in the 1970s to incorporate mechanisms for public participation in administrative policymaking. We present two alternative models to explain this institutional transformation. The first model is built around a strategic problem facing the president in overseeing an agency, and it is closely related to existing models in the formal theory literature (Acs and Coglianese 2022, Gailmard and Patty 2017, Libgober 2020, You 2017). The second model focuses on how alternative institutions are useful to different groups, rather than politicians, as the main factor underlying institutional development. These two models yield alternative comparative statics, demonstrating the substantive stakes for what we learn about politics from these alternative theoretical approaches.

Drawing upon historical scholarship, we argue that the group-based approach better captures political dynamics in the case of participatory reforms to the bureaucracy. This aligns with scholarship in American political development emphasizing the role of political coalitions in achieving institutional transformation (e.g., Shefter 1993). Yet the formal analysis highlights important principles for understanding institutional development. For example, the need to form a coalition to establish a new institution introduces potential commitment problems within the prospective coalition. This idea has been studied in the context of enacting coalitions structuring bureaucratic agencies, but it is also relevant to the historical development of administrative agencies and participatory rules in the first place. We conclude by recommending greater consideration of the group-based approach in formal theories of institutional development.

Authors

• David Robert Foster, Florida State University

• Joseph Warren, University of Alaska Anchorage