The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance
Abstract
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many questioned whether the large number of political appointees in the Federal Emergency Management Agency contributed to the agency's poor handling of the catastrophe, ultimately costing hundreds of lives and causing immeasurable pain and suffering. The Politics of Presidential Appointments examines in depth how and why presidents use political appointees and how their choices impact government performance--for better or worse. One way presidents can influence the permanent bureaucracy is by filling key posts with people who are sympathetic to their policy goals. But if the president's appointees lack competence and an agency fails in its mission--as with Katrina--the president is accused of employing his friends and allies to the detriment of the public. Through case studies and cutting-edge analysis, David Lewis takes a fascinating look at presidential appointments dating back to the 1960s to learn which jobs went to appointees, which agencies were more likely to have appointees, how the use of appointees varied by administration, and how it affected agency performance. He argues that presidents politicize even when it hurts performance--and often with support from Congress--because they need agencies to be responsive to presidential direction. He shows how agency missions and personnel--and whether they line up with the president's vision--determine which agencies presidents target with appointees, and he sheds new light on the important…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The traditional practice of allowing parties, department heads, legislators, and interest groups to control most appointments gave way over time to well-organized means within the EOP of filling key positions with people chosen to serve the president's interests (Lewis, 2008;Weko, 1995).”
From The strongman presidency and the two logics of presidential power (2023) · cites this paper as Lewis, 2008
In the citing paper
“Politicization involved the appointment of increasing numbers of presidential loyalists-within the EOP, of course, but also throughout the bureaucracy-to occupy positions of importance to policymaking.”
From The strongman presidency and the two logics of presidential power (2023) · cites this paper as Lewis, 2008
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Defining Bureaucratic Autonomy
Bersch, K., & Fukuyama, F. (2023) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102914 · Cited by 58
The strongman presidency and the two logics of presidential power
Howell, W. G., & Moe, T. M. (2023) · Presidential Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1111/psq.12830 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewis, D. E.
- Corresponding author
- Lewis, David E.
- Venue
- Princeton University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 2008-12-31
- OpenAlex
- W2345139956
- Cited by
- 547
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 40.69
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Princeton University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
- Keywords
- presidential appointments, political appointees, FEMA, Hurricane Katrina, agency performance, patronage, bureaucracy, executive-legislative relations, presidentialism, federal agencies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review