Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Illustrations -- List of Tables -- Acknowledgments -- Abbreviations -- Introduction -- One. Entrepreneurship, Networked Legitimacy, and Autonomy -- Two. The Clerical State: Obstacles to Bureaucratic Autonomy in Nineteenth-Century America -- Three. The Railway Mail, Comstockery, and the Waning of the Old Postal Regime, 1862–94 -- Four. Organizational Renewal and Policy Innovation in the National Postal System, 1890–1910 -- Five. The Triumph of the Moral Economy: Finance, Parcels, and the Labor Dilemma in the Post Office, 1908–24 -- Six. Science in the Service of Seeds: The USDA, 1862–1900 -- Seven. From Seeds to Science: The USDA as University, 1897–1917 -- Eight. Multiple Networks and the Autonomy of Bureaus: Departures in Food, Pharmaceutical, and Forestry Policy, 1897–1913 -- Nine. Brokerage and Bureaucratic Policymaking: The Cementing of Autonomy at the USDA, 1914–28 -- Ten. Structure, Reputation, and the Bureaucratic Failure of Reclamation Policy, 1902–14 -- Conclusion: The Politics of Bureaucratic Autonomy -- Notes -- Archival Sources -- Index -- PRINCETON STUDIES IN AMERICAN POLITICS

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the most powerful regulatory agency in the world. How did the FDA become so influential? And how exactly does it wield its extraordinary power? Reputation and Power traces the history of FDA regulation of pharmaceuticals, revealing how the agency's organizational reputation has been the primary source of its power, yet also one of its ultimate constraints. Daniel Carpenter describes how the FDA cultivated a reputation for competence and vigilance throughout the last century, and how this organizational image has enabled the agency to regulate an ind

Abstract
How can historical perspective be brought to the quantitative social sciences? The question has proven immensely popular, but answers that deal squarely with historical context and narrative remain elusive. An important recent book by Gregory Wawro and Ira Katznelson—Time Counts—provides an important new direction and a kit of useable tools. Using Wawro and Katznelson's approach and methods puts social scientists in a better position to appreciate the historicity of their data and to avoid common errors in statistical execution and inference. Time Counts also raises questions every bit as vital as those it answers, especially when it comes to the boundaries between narrative and quantitative work. An important concern is that inference from a particular historical setting (or what I call a "regime") cannot be reduced to a special case of inference from large-sample statistics. Historical judgment is at least partially incommensurable with the idea of probability, cases are often important precisely because they are not countable, and scientific rigor may demand avoiding quantification for part of the social scientist's approach.

The study of agenda setting has become curiously disconnected from democratic theory and democratization. Following Schattschneider, Dahl, and recent developments in political theory, I call for its reintegration in theoretical and empirical realms. The concept of agenda democracy allows for better understanding of contests over institutions, significant historical-institutional transformations, the study of inequality and its mechanisms of generation and maintenance, and the building and undermining of democracy. Agenda democracy requires a broad understanding of agendas (beyond a mere menu of final policy choices), recognizes that many democratic regimes have institutions that systematically render agendas nondemocratic, and compels us to look at the interstices of institutions and society (party transformation, petition and grievance mechanisms, advocacy campaigns, initiatives to expand what I call the shortlist of the possible) for moments of significant change. Agenda democracy compels the examination of democratizing agenda restrictions, the study of conservative organizations in politics, and the consideration of decomposing the term "movement."

On reproche souvent aux pétitions de n'avoir aucune efficacité dans le champ des politiques réelles. Or, l'histoire politique de la démocratisation nord-américaine nous montre que les pétitionnaires peuvent changer la donne et façonner l'agenda politique. Dans les années 1840 et 1850, les Bas-Canadiens (aujourd'hui, les Québécois) débattent de la question de la tenure seigneuriale, et des mécanismes pour la remplacer par une tenure allodiale (soit par une abolition immédiate, soit par une commutation, soit par une réforme plus graduelle). Après des décennies de débats, le Bas-Canada ne parvient pas à réformer la tenure seigneuriale. Mais à partir de 1849, les réformistes pétitionnent massivement, avec des demandes de plus en plus souvent écrites en français et de plus en plus radicales. L'agenda politique se transforme, et le Bas-Canada abolit la tenure seigneuriale en 1854.

AbstractThe formulation and application of categories was the handiwork of frontier scholars of public management and remains the essential task of scholars of bureaucracy and regulation. These scholars, exemplified by James Q. Wilson, pioneered the development of categories in three domains: (1) the inductive assignment of observed objects to conceptual groups (a form of Weberian categorization), (2) the deductive assignment of incentives and styles to conceptual groups (type-dependent theorization), and (3) the empirical assignment of observed objects to applied analytic categories (behavioralist measurement). I find in Varieties of Police Behavior (1968) the origins of his enduring categories in Bureaucracy (1988). His classification of agency personnel into executives, managers, and operators remains perhaps his crowning achievement in administrative research. Yet Wilson examined these categories with greater care than is often demonstrated by his successors, as he was careful to condition his comparisons across and within categories. The extension of truly "Wilsonian" principles of analysis to bureaucratic organization requires not simply the development of conceptual structures and the careful consideration of bureaucratic incentives, but also a reappreciation of administrative routines, practices, concepts, and technologies. It may compel the admission that some quantitative and qualitative comparisons are literally, even mathematically, nonsensical.

Après un demi-siècle de critique presque continuelle, les organes qui composent l'État fédéral aux États-Unis souffrent aujourd'hui d'un profond malaise en termes de réputation. La loyauté des citoyens, les marques de respect social, l'attractivité en ce qui concerne le recrutement de jeunes fonctionnaires, tous ces éléments positifs de la relation des Américains à l'État fédéral semblent disparaitre. En même temps, on constate que certaines agences fédérales jouissent d'une meilleure réputation que d'autres. Pendant un moment, au cours de la crise financière et économique de 2007-2008, certaines d'entre elles ont même bénéficié d'un regain de popularité. Quelles leçons pouvons-nous tirer de cette évolution ? En ce qui concerne la période actuelle, faut-il s'attendre à une renaissance des attentes du citoyen à leur égard, ou même une réaction du deep state face aux critiques des tenants de M. Bannon et du Président Trump ? Ou bien la société américaine est-elle condamnée à la constante détérioration de l'image des organisations qui composent l'État fédéral ? Le présent article montre que la défiance des citoyens américains à l'encontre de l'État est profondément ancrée dans une société marquée par les clivages partisans et une longue tradition de dénigrement.

Native Americans have been structurally excluded from the discipline of political science in the continental United States, as has Native epistemology and political issues. I analyze the reasons for these erasures and elisions, noting the combined effects of rejecting Native scholars, political issues, analysis, and texts. I describe how these arise from presumptions inherent to the disciplinary practices of U.S. political science, and suggest a set of alternative formulations that could expand our understanding of politics, including attention to other forms of law, constitutions, relationships to the environment, sovereignty, collective decision-making, U.S. history, and majoritarianism.

Why do petitions flourish when they are often denied if not ignored by the sovereigns who receive them? When activists seek to build political organizations in network-rich but information-poor environments, petitioning as institutional technology facilitates recruitment. A petition's signatory list identifies and locates individuals sympathetic to its prayer and expresses to other citizens who and how many agree with the prayer. Three historical moments—the explosion of antislavery petitioning in the antebellum United States, the emergence of Protestantism in sixteenth-century France, and England's suppression of petitioning after the Restoration Settlement of 1660—provide vivid demonstrations of the theory. A recruitment-based theory implies that petition drives mobilize as much as they express, that well-established groups and parties petition less frequently, and that the most important readers of a petition are those asked to sign it. The petition's recruitment function complements, but also transforms, its function of messaging the sovereign. Contemporary digital petitioning both routinizes and takes its force from the petition's embedded recruitment technology.