References
- Evans , P.B.; , Rueschemeyer , D.; and Skocpol , T. 1985 . Bringing the State Back In , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
- in press . See, for example, Bentley, A. The Process of Government, P. Odegard, ed. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1967 (originally published 1908); Truman, D. The Governmental Process, Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1953; Dahl, R.A. Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City, Yale University Press: New Haven, 1961; and Polsby, N.W. Community Power and Political Theory: A Further Look at Problems of Evidence and Inference, 2nd Enlarged Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980.
- Easton , D. 1965 . A Systems Analysis of Political Life , New York : Wiley .
- in press . March, J.G.; Olsen, J.P. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review 1984, 78, 734–49; March, J.G.; Olsen, J.P. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, Free Press: New York, 1989.
- in press . See, inter alia, Skowronek, S. Building a New American State: The Development of Administrative Capacities, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1982; Lowi, T. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority, W.W. Norton: New York, 1969; Nordlinger, E. On the Autonomy of the Democratic State, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1981; Almond, G. Return to the State, American Political Science Review 1988, 82: 853–874, and the critiques by E. Nordlinger, T. Lowi, and S. Fabrini, pp. 875ff; Carnoy, M. The State and Political Theory, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1984; Mitchell, T. The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and Their Critics, American Political Science Review 1991, 85: 77–96. On the lack of a “state” in the American system, see Huntington, S. American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1983, pp. 34–36. The literature on the concept of the state in the comparative literature is voluminous. See, e.g., Stepan, A. State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1978; and Skocpol, T. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1979.
- in press . See inter alia Hargrove, E.C. The Power of the Modern Presidency, Knopf: New York, 1974; and Hargrove, E.C. The President as Leader: Appealing to the Better Angels of Our Nature, University Press of Kansas: Lawrence, 1998.
- Swift , E.; and Brady , D. 1994; . “ Common Ground: History and Theories of American Politics ” . In The Dynamics of American Politics , Edited by: Dodd , L. and Jilson , C. 83 – 104 . Boulder : Westview Press .
- Rockman , B.A. 1984 . The Leadership Question: The Presidency and the American System , New York : Praeger .
- in press . Rockman, Leadership Question, especially pp. 49–59.
- in press . Huntington, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony.
- in press . For a brief but illuminating review, see Swift and Brady, “Common Ground.” Their treatment of state theory is found at 85–88.
- Lewis , D.E. 2003 . Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design , Stanford : Stanford University Press .
- Moe , T.M. 1989 . “ The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure ” . In Can the Government Govern? , Edited by: Chubb , J.E. and Peterson , PE. Washington, DC : Brookings .
- Derthick , M.; and Quirk , P.J. 1985 . The Politics of Deregulation , Washington, DC : Brookings .
- in press . See Mayer, K.R., With a Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2001; and Howell, W. Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2003.
- in press . The study of American political development was pioneered by Stephen Skowronek in Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1982. Other work focuses on Congress, such as Schickler, E. Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2001; legislatures generally, as in Huber, J.D.; Shipan, C.R. Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2002; and bureaucracy generally, as in Carpenter, D.P. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputation, Networks, and Policy Innovations in Executive Agencies, 1862– 1928, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2001.
- in press . The role of institutionalization in the presidency has been systematically studied, but conclusions are: its existence and efficacy are not without controversy. See, for example, Ragsdale, L.; Theis, J.L. III The Institutionalization of the American Presidency, 1924–1992, American Journal of Political Science 1997, 41, 1280–1318, and the challenge to those findings presented in Dickinson, M.J.; Lebo, M.J. Reexaming the Institutional Presidency, 1940–2000. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 2003.
- in press . For an example of this perspective applied, see Ponder, D.E. Good Advice: Information and Policy Making in the White House, Texas A&M University Press: College Station, 2000.
- Huntington , S.P. 1968 . Political Order in Changing Societies , New Haven : Yale University Press . ch. 1.
- Polsby , N.W. 1968 . The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives. . American Political Science Review , 62 : 144 – 168 .
- in press . Ponder, Good Advice.
- in press . See Fett, P.J.; Ponder D.E. “The Deinsitutionalization of the U.S. Congress.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 1995.
- in press . See Swift and Brady, “History and Theories of American Politics.”
- in press . See Shepsle,K.A. Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach. Journal of Theoretical Politics 1989, 1, 131–147.
- in press . But see Polsby, “Institutionalization of the House of Representatives,” Cannon, D.T. The Institutionalization of Leadership in the United States Congress, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1989, 14, 415–443, for efforts to measure institutionalization in the context of the US Congress.
- in press . Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, p. 12.
- in press . See, inter alia, Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research, in Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In; March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. The new institutionalism; March and Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions; and Ponder, Good Advice.
- in press . It is important to note here that I interpret Skocpol's interpretation of the state as basically an aggregation of the individual instituionts described by March and Olsen. She elaborates “… states matter because their organizational configurations, along with their overall patterns of activity, affect political culture, encourage some kinds of group formation and collective political actions … and make possible the raising of certain political issues …” (p. 21).
- in press . Ponder, D.E. A Splendid Misery: A Course on the American Presidency, New York: Longman, forthcoming.
- in press . Ibid. Statistical analysis available from the author.
- in press . March and Olsen, “New Institutionalism,” p. 741.
- in press . In the context of comparative politics, Robert Bates offers a perfect example of this in that the “rules” of traditional society emphasized, if not were bound by, the existence of a highly agrarian society. The “preferences” of the state in favor of mondernization conflicted with these older “rules” and ultimately superseded them with a new set of policy “rules” which in turn disadvantaged the agricultural in favor of the industrial sector. See Bates, R. Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies, University of California Press: Berkeley, 1981.
- in press . For an institutonalist view, see Moe, T. “Presidents, Institutions, and Theory” in G.C. Edwards III, B. Rockman, and J. Kessell, eds., Researching the Presidency: Vital Questions, New Approaches, Pittsburgh University Press: Pittsburgh, 1993. For an individualist view, see Greenstein, F.I. The Presidential Difference, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2002.
- in press . See Swift and Brady, Common Ground: History and Theories of American Politics. To be fair, I agree that capacity can exist in the absence of autonomy, as they contend, but my argument is that capacity is a necessary condition for autonomous leadership.
- in press . Skowronek, S. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to George Bush, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1993
- in press . I have begun to make my own modest contribution in two book-length projects. For a first cut, see Ponder, A Course in the American Presidency. My ideas will be more fully developed in Ponder, The Presidency in the American State. Both in progress.
- in press . Here, my argument is similar, though still distinct from that of Andrew Rudalevige, who usefully suggests that a fruitful area for research in presidential leadership would examine hierarchy in staff relationships. I agree, but add the perspective of leadership autonomy, and the degree and conditions under which hierarchy moves the institutionalization process forward, and when it impedes organizational development as they relate to information processing by presidents and their advisors. See Rudalevige, A, What Should the President Know and When Should He know It? Hierarchy and the Study of the Institutional Presidency, PRG Report, 2003, 26, 1, 37–43.
- in press . I have started to do this in work that offers a new conceptualization and measure of presidential standing with the public. Among a series of papers, see Ponder, D.E. Presidential Leverage and the Presidential Agenda, in Cox-Han, L.; Heith, D. In the Public Domain: The Challenges of the Public Presidency, SUNY Press: Albany, forthcoming.