Hearing, not heeding: procedural acknowledgment and substantive influence in rulemaking.

Public participation processes promise that citizens will be heard, but rarely guarantee they will be heeded. This distinction between procedural acknowledgment and substantive influence lies at the heart of bureaucratic responsiveness, yet these two forms of responsiveness are often conflated in em...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory Vol. 36; no. 2; pp. 219 - 234
Autor principal: Love, Alexander
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Apr2026
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=193631231&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 193631231
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10531858
        172N
      jtl: Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory
      issn: 10531858
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2026
      vid: 36
      iid: 2
      pid: 622
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        193631231
        10.1093/jopart/muag003
      ppf: 219
      ppct: 15
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Hearing, not heeding: procedural acknowledgment and substantive influence in rulemaking.
      aug:
        au: Love, Alexander
        affil: Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Democratic Innovations, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, United States
      su:
        Government agencies
        Participation
        Social influence
        Administrative procedure
        Judicial review
        Rational-legal authority
        Delegated legislation
      sug:
        subj:
          Government agencies
          Participation
          Social influence
          Other General Government Support
          Other local, municipal and regional public administration
          Other provincial and territorial public administration
          Other federal government public administration
          Administrative procedure
          Judicial review
          Rational-legal authority
          Delegated legislation
      keyword:
        bureaucratic politics
        copyrightHolder:Public Management Research Association
        copyrightYear:2026
        inLanguage:en
        interest groups
        publisher:Oxford University Press
        responsiveness
        rulemaking
        sameAs:https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muag003
        text analysis
        bureaucratic politics
        copyrightHolder:Public Management Research Association
        copyrightYear:2026
        inLanguage:en
        interest groups
        publisher:Oxford University Press
        responsiveness
        rulemaking
        sameAs:https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muag003
        text analysis
      ab: Public participation processes promise that citizens will be heard, but rarely guarantee they will be heeded. This distinction between procedural acknowledgment and substantive influence lies at the heart of bureaucratic responsiveness, yet these two forms of responsiveness are often conflated in empirical research. I demonstrate that in federal rulemaking, procedural acknowledgment (being heard) is empirically distinct from substantive policy influence (being heeded). Drawing on theories of bureaucratic responsiveness, I argue that agencies strategically cite commenters not primarily to signal agreement but to build defensible administrative records that satisfy procedural requirements while preserving their policy autonomy. Analyzing 854 federal rules from 2017 to 2023, I use semantic text analysis to track changes in binding regulatory provisions distinct from the explanatory preamble. I show that agencies systematically cite comments they ultimately reject, particularly from well-resourced groups. Roughly two-thirds of comment citations are not accompanied by any responsive change to the regulatory text. This reveals that procedural responsiveness can function as a strategic substitute for substantive policy change. These findings suggest that procedural engagement and substantive influence operate as distinct modes of bureaucratic responsiveness, with agencies often prioritizing legal defensibility over policy adaptation when facing potential judicial review.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N