CampusDownWiki
Total citations 15,079한국어KO 2,696EnglishEN 10,072日本語JA 769中文ZH 1,542
CampusDown ↗
English

Police-Patrol and Fire-Alarm Oversight

🏛️ Politics & Public Administration By CampusDown Wiki Editorial Team Last updated
Police-patrol and fire-alarm oversight are two modes of legislative control of bureaucracy identified by Mathew McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz. Police patrols are centralised, routine inspections by legislators; fire alarms rely on citizens and interest groups to flag problems, prompting legislators to act.
Contents
  1. 1. Two modes
  2. 2. Why fire alarms
  3. 3. Procedures and limits
  4. 4. FAQ
  5. 5. References

Two modes

Earlier work such as Ogul (1976) claimed Congress neglected oversight. McCubbins and Schwartz (1984) said this looked only at costly police patrols, overlooking fire alarms set up through rules that let aggrieved parties complain.

Why fire alarms

Fire alarms shift monitoring costs and focus on constituents legislators care about. Weingast and Moran (1983) showed FTC policy tracked committee changes, a key case for principal–agent views of bureaucracy.

Procedures and limits

McCubbins, Noll and Weingast (1987, 1989) saw administrative procedures as ex ante control; Aberbach (1990) found direct oversight rising; Epstein and O'Halloran (1999) analysed delegation. Critics note organised groups dominate alarms, risking regulatory capture.

FAQ

What are these in simple terms?
Police patrols are legislators checking agencies themselves; fire alarms wait for citizens to complain.
What is the downside of fire alarms?
Only organised groups may be heard, missing harms to weaker groups.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

  1. McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165–179. The founding paper.
  2. Ogul, M. S. (1976). Congress oversees the bureaucracy: Studies in legislative supervision. University of Pittsburgh Press. The earlier neglect view.
  3. Weingast, B. R., & Moran, M. J. (1983). Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy, 91(5), 765–800. Evidence of congressional control.
  4. McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3(2), 243–277. Procedures as control.
  5. 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(2), 431–482. Structure and process.
  6. Aberbach, J. D. (1990). Keeping a watchful eye: The politics of congressional oversight. Brookings Institution. Trends in oversight.
  7. Epstein, D., & O'Halloran, S. (1999). Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. Cambridge University Press. Delegation and control.

Reports and materials that use this theory (Korean)

There are no materials dedicated to this theory yet, but you can search related reports in the CampusDown library (Korean).

Find more reports · Search '경찰순찰과 화재경보 감독' on CampusDown →

You may also like

Latest ArticlesView all ›

New guides for college study and assignments (Korean)

This article was last updated on October 27, 2026. It is based on widely recognized original works and textbooks; when citing it in a paper, please check the original sources listed in the references.