Public Choice

, Volume 171, Issue 1–2, pp 167–186 | Cite as

Regulatory capture in agency performance evaluation: industry expertise versus revolving-door lobbying



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.


Lobbying 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).


  1. 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
  2. Averch, H., & Johnson, L. L. (1962). Behavior of the firm under regulatory constraint. The American Economic Review, 52(5), 1052–1069.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent (Vol. 3). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cattaneo, M. D. (2010). Efficient semiparametric estimation of multi-valued treatment effects under ignorability. Journal of Econometrics, 155, 138–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coen, D., & Vannoni, M. (2016). Sliding doors in Brussels: A career path analysis of EU affairs managers. European Journal of Political Research, 55(4), 811–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, D. M. (1998). Amateur government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 450–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doward, J. (2016). Google: New concerns raised about political influence by senior ‘revolving door’ jobs. The Guardian. Retrieved 4 June 2016.
  9. Dunleavy, P. (2014). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: Economic approaches in political science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1999). Delegating powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fields, J., Klein, L. S., & Sfiridis, J. M. (1997). A market based evaluation of the election versus appointment of regulatory commissioners. Public Choice, 92(3–4), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gailmard, S., & Patty, J. W. (2007). Slackers and zealots: Civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 873–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallo, N., & Lewis, D. E. (2012). The consequences of presidential patronage for federal agency performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gernstein, J. (2015, December 31). How Obama failed to shut Washington’s revolving door. Politico. Retrieved 5 June 5 2016.
  15. Hollibaugh, G. E., Horton, G., & Lewis, D. E. (2014). Presidents and patronage. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1024–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hong, S. (2016). Representative bureaucracy, organizational integrity, and citizen coproduction: Does an increase in police ethnic representativeness reduce crime? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hong, S. (2017a). What are the areas of competence for central and local governments? Accountability mechanisms in multi-level governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hong, S. (2017b). Does increasing ethnic representativeness reduce police misconduct? Evidence from police reform in England and Wales. Public Administration Review. doi: 10.1111/puar.12629.Google Scholar
  19. Hong, S., & Lim, J. (2016). Capture and the bureaucratic mafia: Does the revolving door erode bureaucratic integrity? Public Choice, 166(1–2), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huber, J. D., & McCarty, N. (2004). Bureaucratic capacity, delegation, and political reform. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huber, J. D., & Shipan, C. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion?. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Imbens, G. W. (2000). The role of propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika, 87(3), 706–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaufman, H. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. American Political Science Review, 50(4), 1057–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lazarus, J., McKay, A., & Herbel, L. (2016). Who walks through the revolving door and quest; examining the lobbying activity of former members of congress. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 5(1), 82–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, D. E. (2007). Testing Pendleton’s premise: Do political appointees make worse bureaucrats? Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1073–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucca, D., Seru, A., & Trebbi, F. (2014). The revolving door and worker flows in banking regulation. Journal of Monetary Economics, 65, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maranto, R. (1998). Thinking the unthinkable in public administration: A case for spoils in the federal bureaucracy. Administration and Society, 29(6), 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maranto, R. (2001). Why the President should ignore calls to reduce the number of political appointees. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Meehan, B., & Benson, B. L. (2015). The occupations of regulators influence occupational regulation: Evidence from the US private security industry. Public Choice, 162(1–2), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. National Commission on the Public Service. (2003). Urgent business for America: Revitalizing the federal government for the 21st Century. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
  32. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1971). Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review, 31(2), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parsneau, K. (2013). Politicizing priority departments: Presidential priorities and subcabinet experience and loyalty. American Politics Research, 41(3), 443–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Partridge, M., & Sass, T. R. (2011). The productivity of elected and appointed officials: The case of school superintendents. Public Choice, 149(1–2), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pollit, C., Bathgate, K., Caulfield, J., Smullen, A., & Talbot, C. (2001). Agency fever? Analysis of an international policy fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3(3), 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rainey, C. (2014). Arguing for a negligible effect. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1083–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scott, T. (2015). Does collaboration make any difference? Linking collaborative governance to environmental outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3), 537–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shive, S. A., & Forster, M. M. (2016). The revolving door for financial regulators. Review of Finance, rfw035.Google Scholar
  41. Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a new american state: The expansion of national administrative capacities, 1877–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Suleiman, E. (2003). Dismantling democratic states. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Theriault, S. M. (2003). Patronage, the pendleton act, and the power of the people. Journal of Politics, 65(1), 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Riper, P. P. (1958). History of the United States Civil Service. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.Google Scholar
  45. Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Social SciencesYonsei UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations