The Politicization Conversation: A Call to Better Define and Measure the Concept

Abstract

Across disciplines and contexts, scholars vary in their conception of politicization. This variation reveals a need for more consistent concept definition and measurement of the extent to which politics influence administration. We engage this need by providing a typology of politicization that includes consideration of the actions of elected officials, political appointees, and merit‐based administrators. We then assess dynamic differences across the typology in the United States using personnel records spanning four decades, measures of insulation derived from statutory language, and three surveys of senior federal executives. Our analysis provides a research agenda for scholars who seek to examine the politicization of the executive branch.

The Outsiders: Examining the Effects of Political Appointments on Public-Sector Employee Engagement

“…Politicization, at its core, is "the injection of politics into otherwise neutral administration" (Wood & Lewis, 2017, p. 582). Under the U.S. form of democratic governance, the elected official is held accountable for policy successes and failures by the voting citizenry; it is this personal responsibility that impels the imposition of controls on the administrative agencies that carry out those policy mandates (Limbocker et al, 2022). Presidents are naturally political creatures; reaching the Oval Office requires assembling a broad network of supporters and operatives who align ideologically with them and commit to long-term support.…”

“…The sheer number of required appointments, coupled with a fraught confirmation process and heightened political rancor, has resulted in increasing numbers of vacancies in federal leadership positions, driven both by the inability to fill a role as well as frequent turnover among appointees (Dull et al, 2012;Resh et al, 2020;Wood & Marchbanks, 2008). In the literature, politicization is generally represented through a ratio of either (1) an agency's total appointments to total overall staff or -more commonly -(2) an agency's total appointments to number of SES positions or equivalents (Limbocker et al, 2022). It is important to note that recent scholarship questions whether these ratios adequately capture the construct, which may reflect the focus primarily on senior career staff behaviors and attitudes in studies of politicization (Limbocker et al, 2022).…”

“…As the head of the executive branch, a president's directives are often -and naturally -framed within a particular political context; indeed, both presidents and legislators have demonstrated an increasing willingness to politicize the federal bureaucracy to further their own ideologies or ends (Limbocker et al, 2022;Moynihan, 2022). However, scholars have long warned of trade-offs between control and capability when presidents politicize agencies, including exercising their appointment powers to fill leadership roles.…”

Agency control through the appointed hierarchy: presidential politicization of unilateral appointees

“…As indicated, most analyses focus on PAS positions, with far less on lower-level appointments and their relationships to the overall appointment process. Much of the non-PAS literature studies Schedule C positions as proxies for Presidential politicization strategies (Bonica et al 2015;Hollibaugh et al 2014;Hollibaugh 2015a;Lewis 2007Lewis , 2008Limbocker et al 2022;Lowande 2019;Moore 2018), with Lewis (2008; see also Waterman and Ouyang 2020) including noncareer SES managers.…”

“…Presidential policy objectives (Ban and Ingraham 1990;Bonica et al 2015;Hollibaugh 2015a;Hollibaugh et al 2014;Ingraham et al 1995;Lewis 2007Lewis , 2008Limbocker et al 2022;Lowande 2019;Moore 2018). Further, it indicates that Presidents maintain at least some control over their allocations (Lewis 2008;Light 1995;Patterson 2008;Waterman and Ouyang 2020).…”