Spatial Models of Delegation

Although a large literature on delegation exists, few models have pushed beyond a core set of canonical assumptions. This approach may be justified on grounds of tractability, but the failure to grasp the significance of different assumptions and push beyond specific models has limited our understanding of the incentives for delegation. Consequently, the justifications for delegation that have received recent scrutiny and testing differ from some of the more plausible justifications offered by informal studies of delegation. We show that surprisingly few results in the literature hinge on risk aversion, and surprisingly many turn on the ignored, though equally canonical, technological assumption that uncertainty is fixed (relative to policies). Relaxing the key assumptions about dimensionality and functional forms provides a clearer intuition about delegation—one that is closer to classical treatments. The theory allows us to relate different institutional features (commitment, specialization costs, monitoring, multiple principals) to delegation's observable properties.

[1]  Adam Meirowitz,et al.  Fully-Revealing Equilibria of Multiple-Sender Signaling and Screening Models , 2006, Soc. Choice Welf..

[2]  David L. Epstein Legislating from both sides of the aisle: Information and the value of bipartisan consensus , 1999 .

[3]  Sharyn O'Halloran,et al.  Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers , 1999 .

[4]  Kathleen Bawn Political Control Versus Expertise: Congressional Choices about Administrative Procedures , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[5]  David Epstein,et al.  Partisan and Bipartisan Signaling in Congress , 1998 .

[6]  J. Ferejohn Incumbent performance and electoral control , 1986 .

[7]  Amihai Glazer,et al.  THEORIES OF DELEGATION , 2003 .

[8]  Marco Battaglini,et al.  Multiple Referrals and Multidimensional Cheap Talk , 2002 .

[9]  Thomas W. Gilligan,et al.  Collective Decisionmaking and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures , 1987 .

[10]  A. Mas-Colell,et al.  Microeconomic Theory , 1995 .

[11]  Keith Krehbiel,et al.  Organization of Informative Committees by a Rational Legislature , 1990 .

[12]  David Epstein,et al.  An informational rationale for committee gatekeeping power , 1997 .

[13]  Thomas W. Gilligan,et al.  Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules with a Heterogeneous , 1989 .

[14]  Alana Northrop,et al.  Public Administration , 1968, The Journal of Politics.

[15]  V. Krishna,et al.  Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules: Some Amendments , 2001, American Political Science Review.

[16]  Thomas Schwartz,et al.  Congressional Oversight Over-looked: Police Patrol versus Fire Alarms , 1984 .

[17]  Jstor The American political science review , 2022 .

[18]  Roger G. Noll,et al.  Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control , 1987 .

[19]  James F. Wilson Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It , 1990 .

[20]  Francesco Giovannoni,et al.  Deliberate Discretion?: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. , 2004 .