Presidential Appointments and Policy Priorities

Abstract

Previous studies of presidential appointments have consistently found that presidents place their most competent appointees into agencies responsible for policy issues high on their agendas. Using a survey with an embedded experimental manipulation, we examine whether members of the public, when given the backgrounds of fictional presidential appointees, are able to infer the president's policy priorities based on the perceived competence of the appointees. Results suggest that perceived policy importance is positively associated with perceptions of competence, and negatively associated with perceptions of favoritism or patronage - characterized here as the nomination of campaign fundraisers. Moreover, these same factors are associated with increased levels of support for the President's policy positions in the policy areas for which the nominees are responsible. Notably, perceived nominee ideology has no perceptible effect on policy support or perceived policy importance.