From Capitol Hill to Dupont Circle and beyond: The Influence of Policy Actors in the Federal Higher Education Rulemaking Process

References

• Academic Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant Program: Final regulations, 72 Fed. Reg. 61248 (2007) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 691).
   Google Scholar
• Adams, C. J. (2011, June 15). “Gainful employment” rules leave many disappointed. Education Week, 30(35), 20.
   Google Scholar
• Administrative Procedure Actcolcol, 5 United State Code §§ 500 et seq. (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. E. (2006). Public policymaking (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan. Memorandum Opinion. Civil Action 11–1314 (RC) (D.D.C. 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Balla, S. J., & Daniels, B. M. (2007). Information technology and public commenting on agency regulations. Regulation & Governance, 1(1), 46–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, M. H. (1955). Regulating business by independent commission. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bertelli, A. M. (2012). The political economy of public sector governance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bertelli, A. M., & Lynn, L. E. (2006). Madison 's managers: Public administration and the Constitution. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Congressional Review Act, 5 United States Code §§ 801 et seq. (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Cook, C. E. (1998). Lobbying for higher education: How colleges and universities influence federal policy. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2009, November 12). Federal update: Final regulations implementing accreditation provisions in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA). Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/Fed%20Update_Chart_11.09.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Executive Order No. 12866, Title 3 C.F.R. 638 (1993 comp.).
   Google Scholar
• Field, K. (2009, April 20). Shireman is named deputy under secretary of education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Shireman-Is-Named-Deputy-Under/42772
   Google Scholar
• Field, K. (2011, June 2). For-profit colleges win major concessions in final ‘gainful employment’ rule. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/ForProfit-Colleges-Win-Major/127744/
   Google Scholar
• Field, K. (2014, November 6). For-profit colleges sue again over federal gainful-employment rule. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Sue-Again/149871/
   Google Scholar
• Gilmour, J. B., & Lewis, D. E. (2006). Political appointees and the competence of federal program management. American Politics Research, 34(1), 22–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golden, M. M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 245–270.
   Google Scholar
• Hannah, S. B. (1996). The Higher Education Act of 1992: Skills, constraints, and the politics of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), 498–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higher Education Act, 20 U.S. Code §§ 1001 et seq. (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Hill, L. B. (1991). Who governs the American administrative state? A bureaucratic-centered image of governance. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 1(3), 261–294.
   Google Scholar
• Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended, and the Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies: Final rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 55414 (2009) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pts. 600 and 602).
   Google Scholar
• Kerwin, C. M., & Furlong, S. R. (2011). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laffont, J., & Tirole, J. (1991). The politics of government decision-making: A theory of regulatory capture. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1089–1127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, D. (2007, June 4). Lack of consensus on lack of consensus. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/04/accredit
   Google Scholar
• Lederman, D. (2011, June 13). The true significance of ‘gainful employment.’ Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/13/explaining_the_true_significance_of_painful_employment_rules
   Google Scholar
• Lowry, R. C. (2009). Reauthorization of the federal Higher Education Act and accountability for student learning: The dog that didn't bark. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 39(3), 506–526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubbers, J. S. (1998). A guide to federal agency rulemaking (3rd ed.). Chicago: American Bar Association.
   Google Scholar
• Makkai, T., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). In and out of the revolving door: Making sense of agency capture. Journal of Public Policy, 12(1), 61–78.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, L. K. (2012). Toward institutional autonomy or nationalization? A case study of the federal role in U.S. higher education accreditation. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3506040).
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3(2), 243–277.
   Google Scholar
• McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Structure and process, politics and policy: Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies. Virginia Law Review, 75(2), 431–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Moe, T. M. (2012). Delegation, control, and the study of public bureaucracy. The Forum, 10(2), Article 4. ISSN (Online) 1540–8884, DOI: 10.1515/1540–8884.1508.
   Google Scholar
• Niles, M. C. (2002). On the hijacking of agencies (and airplanes): The Federal Aviation Administration, “agency capture,” and airline security. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, & the Law, 10(2), 381–442.
   Google Scholar
• Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
   Google Scholar
• Nolter, C. (2012, July 5). For-profit colleges win in court, face new uncertainty. The Deal Pipeline. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic database.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, M. D. (1997). Power and politics: Federal higher education policymaking in the 1990s. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pelesh, M. L. (1994). Regulations under the Higher Education Amendments of 1992: A case study in negotiated rulemaking. Law & Contemporary Problems, 57(4), 151–170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pritzker, D. M., & Dalton, D. S. (1995, September). Negotiated rulemaking sourcebook. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Program Integrity: Gainful Employment: Debt Measures, Final Rule: Final regulations, 76 Fed. Reg. 34386 (2011) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 668).
   Google Scholar
• Program Integrity: Gainful Employment: Final regulations, 79 Fed. Reg. 64890 (2014) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pts. 600 and 668).
   Google Scholar
• Program Integrity: Gainful Employment: Notice of proposed rulemaking, 75 Fed. Reg. 4361 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Public Regional Hearing on Negotiated Rulemaking, U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education. (2006, October 5). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2007/transcript-il.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rourke, F. E. (1969). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Selingo, J. (2006, May 26). Official of governors' group moves to Education Dept. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(38), A25.
   Google Scholar
• Spiller, P. T., & Urbiztondo, S. (1994). Political appointees vs. career civil servants: A multiple principals theory of political bureaucracies. European Journal of Political Economy, 10(3), 465–497.
   Google Scholar
• Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Archived Information: 2002 Negotiated Rulemaking Teams. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2002/finalnegotiatorschart.pdf
   Google Scholar
• U.S. House of Representatives. (1992). Higher Education Amendments of1992: Conference Report. H.R. Rep. 102–630. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, B. D., & Waterman, R. W. (1991). The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 85(3), 801–828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yackee, S. W. (2003). An agent, but an agent of whom? Organized interests and the U.S. bureaucracy. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3086656).
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Zemsky, R. (2013). Checklist for change: Making American higher education a sustainable enterprise. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar