Can Vendors Buy Influence? The Relationship Between Campaign Contributions and Government Contracts

REFERENCES

• Balla, S. J., & Wright, J. R. (2001). Interest groups, advisory committees, and congressional control of the bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 799–812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T. L., & Potoski, M. (2003). Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government service production decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 441–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T. L., & Potoski, M. (2005). Transaction costs and contracting: The practitioner perspective. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 326–351.
   Google Scholar
• Brudney, J. L., Fernandez, S., Ryu, J. E., & Wright, D. (2005). Exploring and explaining contracting out: patterns among the American states. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 393–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corts, K. S. (2006). The interaction of task and asset allocation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(5), 887–906.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corts, K. S., & Singh, J. (2004). The effect of repeated interaction on contract choice: Evidence from offshore drilling. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 20(1), 230–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisner, M. A., & Meier, K. J. (1990). Presidential control versus bureaucratic power: explaining the Reagan revolution in antitrust. American Journal of Political Science, 34(1), 269–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeney, M. K., & Kingsley, G. (2008). The rebirth of patronage: Have we come full circle? Public Integrity, 10(2), 165–176.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez, S., Ryu, J. E., Brudney, J. L. (2008). Exploring variations in contracting for services among American local governments: Do politics still matter? The American Review of Public Administration, 38(4), 439–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, J. M. (1986). The decision to contract out: an empirical analysis. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22(2), 289–311.
   Google Scholar
• Furlong, S. R. (1998). Political influence on the bureaucracy: the bureaucracy speaks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(1), 39–65.
   Google Scholar
• Gais, T. L., Peterson, M. A., & Walker, J. L. (1984). Interest groups, iron triangles and representative institutions in American National Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   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
• Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, R. L., & Wayman, F. W. (1990). Buying time: Moneyed interests and the mobilization of bias in congressional committees. The American Political Science Review, 84(3), 797–820.
   Google Scholar
• Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, 413.
   Google Scholar
• Hedge, D. M., & Scicchitano, M. J. (1994). Regulating in space and time: The case of regulatory federalism. The Journal of Politics, 56(01), 134–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2012). Political Finance Database. Retrieved October 4, 2013 from http://www.idea.int/
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, M. (2005). Syndromes of corruption: wealth, power, and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, J. M., & Girth, A. M. (2012). Government contracts and “managing the market” exploring the costs of strategic management responses to weak vendor competition. Administration & Society, 44(1), 3–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, J. M., & Romzek, B. S. (1999). Contracting and accountability in state Medicaid reform: rhetoric, theories, and reality. Public Administration Review, 59(5), 383–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelleher, C. A., & Yackee, S.W. (2009). A political consequence of contracting: organized interests and state agency decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 579–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelman, S. (2002). Contracting. In L. Salamon ( Ed.), The tools of government: a guide to the new governance ( pp. 282–318). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lamothe, M., & Lamothe, S. (2012). To trust or not to trust? What matters in local government-vendor relationships? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 867–892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichtenberg, F. R. (1989). Contributions to federal election campaigns by government contractors. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(1), 31–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light, P. (2006). The new true size of government. Organizational Performance Initiative: Research Brief, 2, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Lonsdale, C., Kirkpatrick, I., Hoque, K., & DeRuyter, A. (2010). Supplier behaviour and public contracting in the English agency nursing market. Public Administration, 88(3), 800–818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markusen, A. R. (2003). The case against privatizing national security. Governance, 16(4), 471–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2006). Political control versus bureaucratic values: reframing the debate. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 177–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe, T. M. (1982). Regulatory performance and presidential administration. American Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 197–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe, T. M. (1985). Control and feedback in economic regulation: the case of the NLRB. The American Political Science Review, 79(4), 1094–1116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. R., Hirlinger, M. W., & England, R. E. (1988). The decision to contract out city services: a further explanation. The Western Political Quarterly, 41(2), 363–372.
   Google Scholar
• Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Circular A-76. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). OECD principles for integrity in public procurement. Paris, France: Author.
   Google Scholar
• O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (2004). Parkinson’s Law and the new public management? Contracting determinants and service–quality consequences in public education. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 342–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potters, J., Sloof, R., & Van Winden, F. (1997). Campaign expenditures, contributions and direct endorsements: The strategic use of information and money to influence voter behavior. European Journal of Political Economy, 13(1), 1–31
   Google Scholar
• Rundquist, B., & Carsey, T. M. (2002). Congress and defense spending: The distributive politics of military procurement (Vol. 3). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
   Google Scholar
• Savas, E. S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships. New York, NY: Chatham House.
   Google Scholar
• Sclar, E. (2000). You don’t always get what you pay for: the economics of privatization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, P. W. (2003). Corporate warriors: The rise of the privatized military industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincol ( Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research ( pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
   Google Scholar
• United States Government. (n.d.). USA Spending Data. Retrieved December 1, 2012 from usaspending.gov
   Google Scholar
• United States Government Accountability Office. (1997). Report to congressional requesters privatization: Lessons learned by state and local governments. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Slyke, D. M., & Hammonds, C. A. (2003). The privatization decision: do public managers make a difference? The American Review of Public Administration, 33(2), 146–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, M. E. (2011). Competition or cooperation in urban service delivery? Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 82(4), 421–435.
   Google Scholar
• Warner, M., & Hebdon, R. (2001). Local government restructuring: privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(2), 315–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, W. F. (2005). Neutral competence and political responsiveness: an uneasy relationship. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witko, C. (2011). Campaign contributions, access, and government contracting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 761–778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, B. D. (1990). Does politics make a difference at the EEOC? American Journal of Political Science,34(2), 503–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, B. D., & Waterman, R. W. (1994). Bureaucratic dynamics: The role of bureaucracy in a democracy (p. 141). Boulder, CO: Westview.
   Google Scholar
• Ya Ni, A., & Bretschneider, S. (2007). The decision to contract out: a study of contracting for e-government services in state governments. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 531–544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yackee, J. W., & Yackee, S. W. (2006). A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the US bureaucracy. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 128–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zardkoohi, A. (1985). On the political participation of firms in the electoral process. Economic Journal, 51, 804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zullo, R. (2006). Public–private contracting and political reciprocity. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar