Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective. Scholars have long held that presidents use various tools to control the federal bureaucracy. Yet, despite their importance to presidents in achieving their policy goals in Congress, few scholars have examined the impact of presidential speeches on bureaucratic activity. This article analyzes the impact of both positive and negative policy signals on civil rights policy in the bureaucracy. Method. I test this hypothesis using speeches coded from the Public Papers of the Presidents and their impact on criminal cases filed by the Civil Rights Division over time. Given heteroskedasticity in the dependent variable, log‐linear time‐series methods are appropriate. Results. The president's positive speeches increase the number of criminal civil rights cases filed in U.S. District Court. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also has had a significant, positive impact on bureaucratic activity. Conclusions. In part because bureaucrats have discretion to resist presidential preferences that oppose an agency's core task, negative signals do not affect the implementation of civil rights policy. Yet, positive presidential speeches are available to presidents who may wish to influence the bureaucracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matthew Eshbaugh‐Soha (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: