游说者作为不完美的代理人:对多元制度下公共政策的启示

Q3 Social Sciences
M. Stephenson, H. Jackson
{"title":"游说者作为不完美的代理人:对多元制度下公共政策的启示","authors":"M. Stephenson, H. Jackson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1331503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Interest group pluralism presumes that public policy outcomes are determined principally through a contest for influence among organized pressure groups. Most interest groups, however, do not represent themselves in this process. Rather, they rely on professional lobbyists for representation, information, and advice. These lobbyists are agents with their own interests, and these interests may not align perfectly with those of their clients. This essay outlines this principal-agent problem and sketches its possible implications for policy outcomes. In particular, we hypothesize that the lobbyist-client agency problem may bias policy in favor of small homogeneous groups, may exacerbate status quo bias and lead to excessive attention to symbolic issues, may promote expansive delegations to administrative agencies, and may impede systematic reforms to the policy-making process.","PeriodicalId":39812,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Journal of Legislation","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lobbyists as Imperfect Agents: Implications for Public Policy in a Pluralist System\",\"authors\":\"M. Stephenson, H. Jackson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1331503\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Interest group pluralism presumes that public policy outcomes are determined principally through a contest for influence among organized pressure groups. Most interest groups, however, do not represent themselves in this process. Rather, they rely on professional lobbyists for representation, information, and advice. These lobbyists are agents with their own interests, and these interests may not align perfectly with those of their clients. This essay outlines this principal-agent problem and sketches its possible implications for policy outcomes. In particular, we hypothesize that the lobbyist-client agency problem may bias policy in favor of small homogeneous groups, may exacerbate status quo bias and lead to excessive attention to symbolic issues, may promote expansive delegations to administrative agencies, and may impede systematic reforms to the policy-making process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Journal of Legislation\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Journal of Legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1331503\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Journal of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1331503","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

利益集团多元主义假定,公共政策的结果主要是通过有组织的压力集团之间争夺影响力来决定的。然而,大多数利益集团在这一过程中并不代表自己。相反,他们依靠专业游说者提供代表、信息和建议。这些游说者是有自己利益的代理人,而这些利益可能与客户的利益并不完全一致。本文概述了这一委托代理问题,并概述了其对政策结果的可能影响。特别是,我们假设游说者-客户代理问题可能会使政策偏向于小型同质群体,可能会加剧现状偏见并导致对象征性问题的过度关注,可能会促进对行政机构的广泛授权,并可能阻碍政策制定过程的系统性改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lobbyists as Imperfect Agents: Implications for Public Policy in a Pluralist System
Interest group pluralism presumes that public policy outcomes are determined principally through a contest for influence among organized pressure groups. Most interest groups, however, do not represent themselves in this process. Rather, they rely on professional lobbyists for representation, information, and advice. These lobbyists are agents with their own interests, and these interests may not align perfectly with those of their clients. This essay outlines this principal-agent problem and sketches its possible implications for policy outcomes. In particular, we hypothesize that the lobbyist-client agency problem may bias policy in favor of small homogeneous groups, may exacerbate status quo bias and lead to excessive attention to symbolic issues, may promote expansive delegations to administrative agencies, and may impede systematic reforms to the policy-making process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Harvard Journal of Legislation
Harvard Journal of Legislation Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: The Harvard Journal on Legislation is the nation’s premier legal journal focused on the analysis of legislation and the legislative process. First published in 1964, the Journal on Legislation is the third oldest journal at Harvard Law School. Now in its 57th volume, the Journal is published semi-annually, in winter and summer. For more than half a century, the Journal on Legislation has provided a forum for scholarship on legislative reform and on the efficiency and effectiveness of legislative decision-making. The Journal is especially interested in publishing articles that examine public policy problems of national significance and propose legislative solutions. The Journal frequently publishes policy essays written by current or former members of Congress.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信