Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 441

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Assessment of the Positive Theory of 'Congressional Dominance'

Moe, Terry M.·1987·Legislative Studies Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/439745
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The positive theory of argues that Congress controls the bureaucracy. This article offers a critical assessment, in two parts. The first outlines the logical foundation of the theory, suggests why it is unsuited to an analysis of bureaucratic control, and argues that any conclusions of congressional dominance are logically unwarranted. The second addresses in detail the theory's best known empirical application-a study of the FTC, as reported in various articles by Weingast, Calvert, and Moran-and argues that it does not in fact support the theory's claims.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/439745

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 441

Metadata

Authors
Moe, T. M.
Venue
Legislative Studies Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1987-11
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
475
ISSN
0362-9805 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/439745
OpenAlex
W2035593435
Cited by
441
References
38
FWCI
22.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.