Circumventing formal structure through commitment: Presidential influence and agenda control

Although the formal institutional structure that defines the temporal order of play in a policy game between the Congress and President ought to provide Congress with agenda power, the President is traditionally treated as the dominant player in this relationship. We show that if the President can make clear-cut commitments, presidential commitment can counter the dominance hierarchy and the complexion of equilibrium outcomes. Thus, the details of political interactions (in particular, the possibilities for commitment) may be as important as the formal specification of institutional structure.We thank Peter Aranson, David Austen-Smith, Ed Campos, Gerry Faulhaber, Art Frank, Ken Koford, William Riker, Janet Pack, the anonymous referees, and seminar participants at the University of Delaware, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Rochester for helpful comments, subject to the usual caveat. We also thank Joel Friedlander and Harold Dichter for research assistance.     

Legal Constraints and the Choice of Educational Grant Structures

Recent empirical work suggests that legalconstraints are significant in choosingstate educational grant structures. Unfortunately, the literature has not takensuch constraints into account, thus callinginto question particular grant structurerecommendations. This paper studies theconditions under which a legislature, underorder to reform its educational grantstructure, prefers foundation grants overdistrict power equalization grants. Atheoretical model is presented in which thechoice is shown to depend on the legalbasis of the court's decision, and theempirical validity of this conclusion isdemonstrated using Connecticut data and aseparate model of school districtexpenditure choice.