Regulatory capture in agency performance evaluation: industry expertise versus revolving-door lobbying
- 387 Downloads
This study investigates the concept of bureaucratic competence. Specifically, we challenge the argument that a “careerists’ premium”—the tendency for public services run by careerists to receive better performance evaluations than services administered by other types of public managers—necessarily is explained by the superior expertise of career bureaucrats. Evidence that forms the basis of this possibility comes from performance evaluations of Korean state-owned enterprises (SOEs) managed by different types of executives between 2000 and 2015. The results of our analyses provide support for the existence of a careerists’ premium. However, we find that the premium is most salient and significant when executives had retired from the governmental agency that oversees the performance-evaluation process. Moreover, the gap between qualitative and quantitative assessment scores increase significantly when the evaluated SOEs are managed by career executives who have retired from the regulating agency. This result suggests that the oft-cited careerists’ premium may not necessarily signify careerists’ greater expertise; it may also be the product of lobbying and regulatory capture.
KeywordsLobbying Regulatory capture Revolving door Performance evaluation Utility sector State-owned enterprise Rent-seeking
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government(NRF-2014S1A3A2044630).
- Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (2000). In the web of politics: Three decades of the US federal executive. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Averch, H., & Johnson, L. L. (1962). Behavior of the firm under regulatory constraint. The American Economic Review, 52(5), 1052–1069.Google Scholar
- Bok, D. (2003). Government personnel policy in comparative perspective. In J. D. Donahue & J. S. Nye Jr. (Eds.), For the people: Can we fix public service? (pp. 255–272). Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
- Doward, J. (2016). Google: New concerns raised about political influence by senior ‘revolving door’ jobs. The Guardian. Retrieved 4 June 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/04/google-influence-hiring-government-officials.
- Dunleavy, P. (2014). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: Economic approaches in political science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Gernstein, J. (2015, December 31). How Obama failed to shut Washington’s revolving door. Politico. Retrieved 5 June 5 2016. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/barack-obama-revolving-door-lobbying-217042%ixzz4Cxyo44HI.
- Maranto, R. (2001). Why the President should ignore calls to reduce the number of political appointees. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Moe, T. M. (1985). The politicized presidency. In J. E. Chubb & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The new direction in American politics (pp. 235–271). Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
- National Commission on the Public Service. (2003). Urgent business for America: Revitalizing the federal government for the 21st Century. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
- Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- Shive, S. A., & Forster, M. M. (2016). The revolving door for financial regulators. Review of Finance, rfw035.Google Scholar
- Suleiman, E. (2003). Dismantling democratic states. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Van Riper, P. P. (1958). History of the United States Civil Service. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.Google Scholar