Committees and legislatures

Congressional Committees ◽

Congressional Budget Office ◽

High Quality Information ◽

Policy Challenge ◽

The Government ◽

Policy Proposals

The United States Congress, despite its poor reputation for policymaking, has substantial analytical capacity. While congressional committees possess some of this capability, most of the expertise resides in its three support agencies—the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Within their relative portfolios each of these three agencies has provided the Congress with the ability to make policy, challenge policy proposals coming from the president, and hold the executive branch accountable. All of these agencies face the challenge of providing thorough and credible analyses within the confines of the legislative process and timetable. Further, they must maintain their credibility for nonpartisan analysis in the midst of a political environment that is only growing more polarized. These agencies supply a great deal of high quality information. The challenge for the Congress is how to make better use of this analysis in crafting more effective public policies.

Saving the News

10.1093/oso/9780190948412.001.0001 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Martha Minow

Keyword(s):

First Amendment ◽

The United States ◽

Market Failures ◽

Truth Telling ◽

Private Industry ◽

Government Action ◽

Digital Platforms ◽

The Media ◽

This book argues that US democracy presumes a news industry but that industry currently is failing. It focuses on the contributions of digital platforms and legal rules to the current situation and on the government's responsibilities for alleviating the problem. As the book shows, the First Amendment of the US Constitution assumes the existence and durability of a private industry. Despite some concerns that government action now is not permitted, nothing in the Constitution forecloses government action to regulate concentrated economic power, to require disclosure of who is financing communications, or to support news initiatives where there are market failures. Moreover, the federal government always been involved in shaping the media environment; it has contributed financial resources, laws, and regulations to develop and shape media in the United States. The government has subsidized development of the internet and crafted legal immunities for digital platforms; the government has crafted the direction and contours of America's media ecosystem. The shift of people’s attention to media platforms that borrow news stories without paying for them and spread misinformation jeopardizes journalism, reliable news sources, and the very respect for truth-telling. To maintain government accountability and inform a public as required in a democracy, The book outlines an array of reforms, including a new fairness doctrine, regulating digital platforms as public utilities, using antitrust authority to regulate the media, policing fraud, and more robust funding of public media. As the text stresses, such reforms are not merely plausible ideas; they are the kinds of initiatives needed if the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press continues to hold meaning in the twenty-first century.

United States of America

Intelligence as Democratic Statecraft ◽

10.1093/oso/9780192893949.003.0003 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 44-88

Author(s):

Christian Leuprecht

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Civil Liberties ◽

The United States ◽

Intelligence Community ◽

Select Committee ◽

Accountability System ◽

The Us ◽

This chapter reviews the member organizations of the United States Intelligence Community, the strategic environment that has informed intelligence and accountability in the United States, including scandals as a key driver of innovation, and the current and future threat environment as seen by the United States. The chapter examines the US intelligence accountability architecture: the House of Representative Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Inspectors General, the Government Accountability Office, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Office, and the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. The sheer number and complexity of accountability bodies in the US gives rise to inefficiencies, ineffectiveness, and duplication. The accountability system is replete with gaps and vulnerabilities: partisanship, collective-action problems, resource allocation, and inconsistent quality of review in congressional accountability; GAO’s limited authority to review the USIC and sensitive operations; the adequacy of the FISA court in adequately protecting the rights of Americans; and Presidential discretion in appointing and removing IGs. These issues have implications not just for the United States, but for allies, partners as well as regional and global stability.

Administrative and Ethical Issues in Ghana’s Public Administration

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal ◽

10.14738/assrj.810.11105 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (10) ◽

pp. 573-594

Author(s):

Nick Fobih

Keyword(s):

Public Sector ◽

Service Delivery ◽

Public Administration ◽

Ethical Issues ◽

National Development ◽

Secondary Data ◽

Executive Branch ◽

Ethical Challenges ◽

This study examines some of the major administrative and ethical challenges facing Ghana’s public administration, with regard to the issues associated with the country’s governance processes and public sector service delivery. The methodology used is based on the qualitative approach with combined sources from primary and secondary data and the case study method. The findings in the study show that whereas Ghana’s democracy has made significant inroads over the years since the 1992 democratic transition, a number of administrative and ethical issues hinder the country’s public administration processes and procedures, which require immediate government attention to address them more appropriately. The study recommends that the government (executive branch) and the bureaucracy (Ministries, Departments and Agencies) should make frantic efforts towards promoting effective and efficient service delivery system and government accountability for accelerated national development. The study’s implication for theory is that it will inform its readers about the different perspectives on the topic discussed. Given the service delivery and corruption challenges in Ghana’s public sector, the recommendations will go a long way to help address some of the problems facing Ghana’s MDAs and the government in general. The significance of the study is that it provides key insights into important issues in Ghana’s public administration, which can serve as useful lessons for the government, public institutions and the bureaucracy. The outlined challenges and recommendations will inform the government, MDAs and other government agencies of the need to improve governance and administration in order to accelerate the country’s political and socio-economic development. This study further contributes towards academic discussions on the administrative and ethical issues hampering the effective delivery of services and public and administration in Ghana and Africa in general.

Time, Uranium and the Legislative Process

Federal Law Review ◽

10.1177/0067205x7800900401 ◽

1978 ◽

Vol 9 (4) ◽

pp. 399-426

Author(s):

Laurence W. Maher

Keyword(s):

Federal Government ◽

Large Scale ◽

Attorney General ◽

National Interest ◽

The United States ◽

Legislative Process ◽

Judicial Process ◽

Parliamentary Debates ◽

Parliamentary Debate ◽

On the evening of 18 November 1976 the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 passed through both Houses of Federal Parliament in less than three hours. The Federal Government claimed that the Act was urgently needed to protect the Australian national interest, which was said generally to be threatened by attempts being made to gather evidence in Australia for use in large-scale litigation in the United States of America arising put of an international uranium cartel The Parliamentary debate did little credit either to the Government or the Opposition. It is necessary to go beyond the Parliamentary Debates to make an informed assessment of the Act. When the facts are examined it becomes clear that the Government's claim that the situation was urgent was unfounded, that the appeal to the national interest was at best highly questionable and that, because of the availability of appropriate judicial process, legislative action was unnecessary. The Act is alarmingly vague and reposes wide discretionary powers in the Attorney-General. Its passage and operation have quite disturbing implications for parliamentary democracy and the principle of open government. Where uranium is concerned the Federal Government is showing an increasing tendency to use the Parliament as a cipher.

Opposition in Congressional Committees: the Rights of the Minority Party

Journal of American Studies ◽

10.1017/s002187580002171x ◽

1969 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 17-31

Author(s):

John D. Lees

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Party System ◽

The United States ◽

American Political Science Association ◽

Majority Party ◽

Congressional Committees ◽

Minority Party ◽

The Government ◽

The Right ◽

American Political Science

Political scientists in the United States have in recent years become concerned with analysis of the rights and responsibilities of political opposition. This interest was initially stimulated by the much-quoted, and much-maligned, report of the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association in 1950 entitled Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. It has been supplemented by the volume edited by Robert Dahl, Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. Academic rationale for this interest is reflected in the paradox posed by Dahl, who, having cited ‘ the right of an organized opposition to appeal for votes against the government in elections and parliament’ as being one of ‘the three great milestones in the development of democratic institutions’, is then obliged to admit that in the United States ‘it is never easy to distinguish “opposition” from “government”’, and that ‘it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to identify the opposition’. Opposition in the United States political system is nonstructural because of the multiple access points for influence, and opportunities for preventing or inhibiting governmental action are numerous. No single institution illustrates this fact better than Congress. In speaking of Congress, commentators do not talk about ‘the opposition’. They may refer to ‘the minority party’ (and ‘the majority party’), yet even these terms cannot be used at times when the Senate and House are not controlled by the same party. Moreover, internal organizational and procedural patterns in the contemporary Congress allow many opportunities for minority coalitions to check executive policies favoured by a majority coalition in Congress, and such coalitions are often bipartisan.

China’s Rise and Security Dynamics on the Korean Peninsula

Strategic Adjustment and the Rise of China ◽

10.7591/cornell/9781501709180.003.0008 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Chung-In Moon

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

South Korea ◽

The United States ◽

Chinese Economy ◽

South Korean ◽

Rise Of China ◽

Policy Challenge ◽

The Government ◽

Defense Cooperation ◽

The Rise Of China

This chapter looks at South Korea's response to the rise of China. It establishes South Korea's growing dependence on the Chinese economy and its growing cooperation with China to manage North Korean belligerence. The rise of China creates strategic pressure on South Korea both to accommodate Chinese interests and to maintain defense cooperation with the United States, and that this policy challenge is exacerbated by politically significant anti-Japanese nationalism in South Korea. The result has been significant South Korean policy instability. The policy swings in South Korea's maneuvering between the United States and China from the government of Roh Moo-hyun to that of Lee Myung-bak and then to Park Geun-hye reveal the difficulty that great power competition during a power transition imposes on a small country.

Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review

Implementation Science ◽

10.1186/s13012-020-01046-3 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Laura Ellen Ashcraft ◽

Deirdre A. Quinn ◽

Ross C. Brownson

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Social Policy ◽

Grey Literature ◽

The United States ◽

Executive Branch ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Legislative Process ◽

Research Dissemination ◽

Effective Dissemination ◽

Dissemination Of Research

Abstract Background Research has the potential to influence US social policy; however, existing research in this area lacks a coherent message. The Model for Dissemination of Research provides a framework through which to synthesize lessons learned from research to date on the process of translating research to US policymakers. Methods The peer-reviewed and grey literature was systematically reviewed to understand common strategies for disseminating social policy research to policymakers in the United States. We searched Academic Search Premier, PolicyFile, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science from January 1980 through December 2019. Articles were independently reviewed and thematically analyzed by two investigators and organized using the Model for Dissemination of Research. Results The search resulted in 5225 titles and abstracts for inclusion consideration. 303 full-text articles were reviewed with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. Common sources of research dissemination included government, academic researchers, the peer reviewed literature, and independent organizations. The most frequently disseminated research topics were health-related, and legislators and executive branch administrators were the most common target audience. Print materials and personal communication were the most common channels for disseminating research to policymakers. There was variation in dissemination channels by level of government (e.g., a more formal legislative process at the federal level compared with other levesl). Findings from this work suggest that dissemination is most effective when it starts early, galvanizes support, uses champions and brokers, considers contextual factors, is timely, relevant, and accessible, and knows the players and process. Conclusions Effective dissemination of research to US policymakers exists; yet, rigorous quantitative evaluation is rare. A number of cross-cutting strategies appear to enhance the translation of research evidence into policy. Registration Not registered.

Food Loss Waste in the United States Food Supply Chain: An Analysis of Its Functions, Oversight, and Recent Impacts from the Coronavirus Pandemic

DttP Documents to the People ◽

10.5860/dttp.v48i4.7479 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 48 (4) ◽

pp. 28

Author(s):

Anna L. Price

Keyword(s):

Supply Chain ◽

Food Safety ◽

Environmental Protection Agency ◽

Food Supply ◽

The United States ◽

Executive Branch ◽

Food Supply Chain ◽

Use Of Resources ◽

Inspection Service

Government oversight of the food supply chain consists of a complicated regulatory framework involving multiple executive branch agencies, congressional committees, and state governments. The agencies primarily involved with food safety issues are the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Although the above entities divide responsibility for different aspects of food safety and quality, according to a 2019 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, the patchwork of statutes and regulations has led to “inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources.”

The President Proposes and Congress Disposes—But Not Always: Legislative Initiative on Capitol Hill

The Review of Politics ◽

10.1017/s0034670500033970 ◽

1974 ◽

Vol 36 (3) ◽

pp. 356-370 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

John R. Johannes

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Policy Making ◽

The United States ◽

Executive Branch ◽

Legislative Process ◽

Capitol Hill ◽

Echo Chamber ◽

Legislative Initiative

Recurring and fundamental questions about policy-making in the United States focus on Congress' ability to initiate legislation. Does Congress lead? How and when? Are conditions changing to enhance or inhibit congressional initiative?Nearly all commentators on the legislative process see the president's leadership as natural. But many have argued that he has become the dominant or even exclusive initiator of major legislation. House Republican Leader John Rhodes recently wrote that “Congress has served as little more than a glorified echo chamber for the Executive Branch of government—usually content to approve or disaprove [sic], rarely willing to initiate.” Former Senator Mike Monroney asked, “Is Congress still capable of initiating and enacting its own legislative program?”

Surveillance, Secrecy, and the Search for Meaningful Accountability

10.31228/osf.io/uyjmh ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sudha N. Setty

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Rule Of Law ◽

The United States ◽

Executive Branch ◽

The Rule Of Law ◽

Government Power ◽

Surveillance Programs ◽

The Law ◽

The Government ◽

Government Surveillance

Published: Sudha Setty, Surveillance, Secrecy, and the Search for Meaningful Accountability, 51 STAN. J. INT'L L. 69 (2015). One of the most intractable problems in the debate around maintaining the rule of law while combating the threat of terrorism is the question of secrecy and transparency. In peacetime, important tenets to the rule of law include transparency of the law, limits on government power, and consistency of the law as applied to individuals in the policy. Yet the post-9/11 decision-making by the Bush and Obama administrations is characterized with excessive secrecy that stymies most efforts to hold the government accountable for its abuses. Executive branch policy with regard to detention, interrogation, targeted killing and surveillance are kept secret, and that secrecy has been largely validated by a compliant judiciary that has dismissed almost all suits challenging human and civil rights abuses resulting from counterterrorism programs. Efforts by Congress to engage in meaningful oversight have met with mixed results; in the area of government surveillance, such efforts have been fruitless without the benefit of leaked information on warrantless surveillance by government insiders, since the executive branch has generally refused to make public vital aspects of its surveillance programs in ways that could give oversight efforts more muscle. At the same time, the executive branch has consistently defended the legality and efficacy of these surveillance programs. This paper considers the nature and effect of the warrantless surveillance infrastructure constructed in the United States since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and discusses surveillance-related powers and accountability measures in the United Kingdom and India as comparative examples. Through this analysis, this paper questions whether accountability over government abuses in this area exists in an effective form, or if governments have constructed a post-9/11 legal architecture with regard to surveillance that engenders excessive secrecy and renders accountability mechanisms largely meaningless.