Institutional Conflict and Perceived Property Rights in Appointment Politics

Abstract

Despite the importance of political appointees in U.S. politics, most of what we know about bureaucratic appointment centers on institutional conflict between the separate legislative and executive branches, and ignores personal qualities of nominees that so often seem pivotal to the selection debate. Using data drawn from every appointment to four U.S. independent regulatory agencies, I present empirical evidence that perceived property rights relating to party, race, and gender of appointees powerfully structure appointment process and outcomes. A new model of race and gender of appointees demonstrates that race and gender of an appointee's predecessor is a significant predictor of who gets selected. A separate model of appointment duration demonstrates that partisan factors significantly contribute to delay, but that race and gender considerations do not significantly extend vacancies.