Startseite Sounding the Alarm: The Political Economy of Whistleblowing in the US Security State
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Sounding the Alarm: The Political Economy of Whistleblowing in the US Security State

  • Christopher J. Coyne EMAIL logo , Nathan Goodman und Abigail R. Hall
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 22. Dezember 2018

Abstract

What role do whistleblowers play in democratic politics? This paper answers this question by analyzing the political economy of whistleblowing within democratic political institutions. Democratic politics is characterized by numerous principal-agent problems creating significant space for opportunism. Whistleblowers help to resolve these principal-agent problems through the revelation of information regarding abuses of power. These revelations can take place internally, by taking advantage of channels to report abuse, or externally, by publicly revealing information. The latter is especially important where internal mechanisms for reporting opportunism are lacking. Whistleblowing in the US national security state is presented to illustrate this logic.

JEL Classification: D73; H11; H56

References

Aftergood, S. (2009). Reducing government secrecy: Finding what works. Yale Law & Policy Review, 27(2), 399–416.Suche in Google Scholar

Alford, C. F. (2001). Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational power. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Apesteguia, J., Dufwenberg, M., & Selten, R. (2007). Blowing the whistle. Economic Theory, 31(1), 143–166.10.1007/s00199-006-0092-8Suche in Google Scholar

Arvanitidis, P. A., & Kyriazis, N. C. (2013). Democracy and public choice in classical athens. Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, 19(2), 213–248.10.1515/peps-2012-0018Suche in Google Scholar

Aubert, C., Rey, P., & Kovacic, W. E. (2006). The impact of leniency and whistle-blowing programs on cartels. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 1241–1266.10.1016/j.ijindorg.2006.04.002Suche in Google Scholar

Axelrod, J., & Rand, E. (2016). Investigation reveals CENTCOM general delayed intel on ISIS fight meant for the president, CBS News, September 22, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-a-centcom-general-delay-intelligence-meant-for-the-president/.Suche in Google Scholar

Barro, R. J. (1973). The control of politicians: An economic model. Public Choice, 14, 19–42.10.1007/BF01718440Suche in Google Scholar

Besley, T. (2006). Principled agents? The political economy of good government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Bjørnskov, C., & Freytag, A. (2016). An offer you can’t refuse: Murdering journalists as an enforcement mechanism of corrupt deals. Public Choice, 167(3–4), 221–243.10.1007/s11127-016-0338-3Suche in Google Scholar

Bohanan, C. E., & Van Cott, T. N. (2002). Now more than ever, your vote doesn’t matter. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, 6(4), 591–595.Suche in Google Scholar

Boudreaux, D. J. (1996). Was your high school civics teacher right after all? Donald Wittman’s the myth of democratic failure. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, 1(1), 111–128.Suche in Google Scholar

Bowman, J. S. (1983). Whistle blowing: Literature and resource materials. Public Administration Review, 43(3), 271–276.10.2307/976337Suche in Google Scholar

Bromwich, J. E. (2016). Snowden leaks illegal but were ‘a Public Service’ Eric Holder Says. New York Times, May 31, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/holder-says-snowden-performed-a-public-service.html.Suche in Google Scholar

Buchanan, J. M. (1954). Individual choice in voting and the market. Journal of Political Economy, 62(4), 334–343.10.1086/257538Suche in Google Scholar

Chesney, R. M. (2007). State secrets and the limits of national security litigation. George Washington Law Review, 75(5–6), 1249–1332.Suche in Google Scholar

Cho, Y. J., & Song, H. J. (2015). Determinants of whistleblowing within government agencies. Public Personnel Management, 44(4), 450–472.10.1177/0091026015603206Suche in Google Scholar

Cole, D. (2003). The new mccarythism: Repeating history in the war on terrorism. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 38, 1–30.Suche in Google Scholar

Coyne, C. J. (2011). The political economy of the creeping militarization of US foreign policy. Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, 17(1), 1–25.10.2202/1554-8597.1221Suche in Google Scholar

de Figueiredo, R. J. P., Spiller, P. T., & Urbiztondo, S. (1999). An informational perspective on administrative procedures, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15, 283–305.10.1093/jleo/15.1.283Suche in Google Scholar

Dungan, J., Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2015). The psychology of whistleblowing. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 129–133.10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.005Suche in Google Scholar

Economou, E. M. L., & Kyriazis, N. C. (2016). Choosing peace instead of war. A lesson from athenian democracy. Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, 22(2), 191–212.10.1515/peps-2015-0038Suche in Google Scholar

Ellsberg, D. (2013). Secrecy and national security whistleblowing. The Huffington Post, January 13, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ellsberg/secrecy-and-national-secu_b_2469058.html.10.1353/sor.2010.0013Suche in Google Scholar

Feltovich, N., & Hamaguchi, Y. (2018). The effect of whistle-blowing incentives on collusion: An experimental study of leniency programs. Southern Economic Journal, 84(4), 1024–1049.10.1002/soej.12263Suche in Google Scholar

Ferejohn, J. (1986). Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice, 50, 5–25.10.1007/BF00124924Suche in Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, A. E. (1972). The high priests of waste. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.Suche in Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, A. E. (1989). The pentagonists: An insider’s view of waste, mismanagement and fraud in defense spending. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Suche in Google Scholar

Friedman, L., & Hansen, V. (2012). Secrecy, transparency, and national security. William Mitchell Law Review, 38(5), 1610–1628.Suche in Google Scholar

Funk, P. (2005). Government action, social norms, and criminal behavior. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161(3), 522–535.10.1628/093245605774259363Suche in Google Scholar

Gelman, A., Silver, N., & Edlin, A. (2012). What is the probability your vote will make a difference. Economic Inquiry, 50(2), 321–326.10.3386/w15220Suche in Google Scholar

Glennon, M. (2014). National security and double government. Harvard National Security Journal, 5, 1–113.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190206444.003.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Goitein, E., & Shapiro, D. M. (2011). Reducing overclassification through accountability. New York: The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.Suche in Google Scholar

Grasmick, H. G., & Green, D. E. (1980). Legal punishment, social disapproval and internalization as inhibitors of illegal behavior. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 71(3), 325–335.10.2307/1142704Suche in Google Scholar

Heckelman, J. C. (2003). Now more than ever, your vote doesn’t count: A reconsideration. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, 7(4), 599–601.Suche in Google Scholar

Higgs, R. (2012). Delusions of power: New explorations of the state, war, and the economy. Oakland: Independent Institute.Suche in Google Scholar

Higgs, R. (2018). Principal-agent theory and representative government. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, 22(3), 479–480.Suche in Google Scholar

Hogan, M. J. (1998). A cross of iron: Harry S. Truman and the national security state 1945–1954. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511664984Suche in Google Scholar

Horton, S. (2015). Lords of secrecy: The national security elite and America’s stealth warfare. New York: Nation Books.Suche in Google Scholar

Huard, L. A. (1956). The status of the national internal security during 1955. Georgetown Law Journal, 44(2), 179–220.Suche in Google Scholar

Huber, J., & Shipan, C. (2002). Deliberate discretion? The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804915Suche in Google Scholar

Hurley, W. J., Brimberg, J., & Fisher, B. (2013). Use it or lose it: On the incentives to spend annual defence operating budgets. Defence and Peace Economics, 25(4), 401–413.10.1080/10242694.2013.780758Suche in Google Scholar

Knight, F. H. (1960). Intelligence and democratic action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674181731Suche in Google Scholar

Landau, S. (2013). Making sense from Snowden: What’s significant in the NSA surveillance revelations. IEEE Security and Privacy, 11(4), 54–63.10.1109/MSP.2013.90Suche in Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (2003). Presidents and the politics of agency design. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1994a). Learning from oversight: Fire alarms and police patrols reconsidered. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 10, 96–125.10.1093/jleo/10.1.96Suche in Google Scholar

Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1994b). Designing bureaucratic accountability. Law and Contemporary Problems, 57, 91–126.10.2307/1191988Suche in Google Scholar

McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Policy patrols vs. fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165–179.10.2307/2110792Suche in Google Scholar

McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243–277.Suche in Google Scholar

McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Structure and process, politics and policy: Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies. Virginia Law Review, 75, 431–482.10.2307/1073179Suche in Google Scholar

Meier, R. F., & Johnson, W. T. (1977). Deterrence as social control: The legal and extralegal production of conformity. American Sociological Review, 42(2), 292–304.10.2307/2094606Suche in Google Scholar

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 277–297.10.1007/s10551-005-0849-1Suche in Google Scholar

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2002). What makes whistle-blowers effective? Three field studies. Human Relations, 55(4), 455–479.10.1177/0018726702055004463Suche in Google Scholar

Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203809495Suche in Google Scholar

Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., Rehg, M. T., & Van Scotter, J. R. (2012). Predicting employee reactions to perceived organizational wrongdoing: Demoralization, justice, proactive personality and whistle-blowing. Human Relations, 65(8), 923–954.10.1177/0018726712447004Suche in Google Scholar

Mitnick, B. (1975). The theory of agency: The policy ‘paradox’ and regulatory behavior. Public Choice, 24, 27–47.10.1007/BF01718413Suche in Google Scholar

Mitnick, B. (1980). Political-economy of regulation. New York: Columbia University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–77.10.2307/2110997Suche in Google Scholar

Moe, T. M. (1985). Control and feedback in economic regulation: The case of the NLRB. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 1094–1116.10.2307/1956250Suche in Google Scholar

Moloney, K., Bowman, J. S., & West, J. P.(2018). Challenges confronting whistleblowing and the international civil servant. Review of Public Personnel Administration, DOI: 10.1177/0734371X18767247.Suche in Google Scholar

Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813771Suche in Google Scholar

Nakao, K. (2017). Transnational policing: Preemption and deterrence against elusive perpetrators. Defence and Peace Economics, DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2017.1331081.Suche in Google Scholar

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1–16.10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_8Suche in Google Scholar

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistleblowing. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 679–708.10.2307/258791Suche in Google Scholar

Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1996). Whistle-blowing: Myth and reality. Journal of Management, 22(3), 507–526.10.1177/014920639602200306Suche in Google Scholar

Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine, Atherton.Suche in Google Scholar

Parks, W. (1957–1958). Secrecy and the public interest in military affairs. George Washington Law Review, 26, 23–77.Suche in Google Scholar

Paternoster, R. (1989). Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: Deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law & Society Review, 23(1), 7–40.10.2307/3053879Suche in Google Scholar

Perry, R. M. (2014). Intelligence whistleblower protections: In brief. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Suche in Google Scholar

Peterson, A. (2014). Snowden: I raised NSA concerns internally over 10 times before going rogue. The Washington Post, March 7, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07/snowden-i-raised-nsa-concerns-internally-over-10-times-before-going-rogue/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8a386ca1d484.Suche in Google Scholar

Poulsen, K. (2018). US intelligence shuts down damning report on whistleblower retaliation. The Daily Beast, February 11, https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intelligence-shut-downs-damning-report-on-whistleblower-retaliation.Suche in Google Scholar

Radack, J., & McClellan, K. (2012). The criminalization of whistleblowing. Labor and Employment Law Forum, 2(1), 57–77.Suche in Google Scholar

Rahill, P. M. (2014). Top secret – the defense of national security whistleblowers: Introducing a multi-factor balancing test. Cleveland State Law Review, 63, 237–267.Suche in Google Scholar

Rana, A. (2012). Who decides security? Connecticut Law Review, 44(5), 1417–90.Suche in Google Scholar

Reksulak, M., Razzolini, L., & Shughart, W. F. (Eds.). (2014). The Elgar Companion to public choice (2nd ed.). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.Suche in Google Scholar

Rowley, C. K., & Schneider, F. (Eds.). (2004). The encyclopedia of public choice (2 vols). New York: Springer.10.1007/b108558Suche in Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers.Suche in Google Scholar

Shughart, W. F. (2006). Katrinanomics: The politics and economics of disaster relief. Public Choice, 127(1/2), 31–53.10.1007/s11127-006-7731-2Suche in Google Scholar

Setty, S. (2012). The rise of national security secrets. Connecticut Law Review, 44(5), 1563–1583.Suche in Google Scholar

Spagnolo, G. (2003). Divide et Impera’: Optimal deterrence mechanisms against cartels and organized crime, Mimeo, http://repec.org/esNAWM04/up.24618.1049197921.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar

Takefman, P. (2013). Curbing overzealous prosecution of the espionage act: Thomas andrews drake and the case for judicial intervention at sentencing. Cardozo Law Review, 35(2), 897–929.Suche in Google Scholar

Ting, M. M. (2008). Whistleblowing. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 249–267.10.1017/S0003055408080192Suche in Google Scholar

Vandekerckhove, W. (2006). Whistleblowing and organizational social responsibility. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar

Voigt, S. (2018). How to measure informal institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(1), 1–22.10.1017/S1744137417000248Suche in Google Scholar

Wagner, R., & Yazigi, D. (2014). Form vs. substance in selection through competition: Elections, markets, and political economy. Public Choice, 159(3–4), 503–514.10.1007/s11127-013-0065-ySuche in Google Scholar

Wangenheim, G. (2011). Production of legal rules by agencies and bureaucracies. In F. Paris (Ed.), Production of Legal Rules, Volume 7: Encyclopedia of law and economics, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.Suche in Google Scholar

Weingast, B. R. (1984). The congressional-bureaucratic system: A principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC). Public Choice, 44, 147–191.10.1007/BF00124821Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-12-22

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 3.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/peps-2018-0024/pdf?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen