Content area
Full Text
The publication of Richard E. Neustadt's "Presidential Power" in 1960 revolutionized presidential studies-a revolution that continues today. Contrary to claims that his book "personalized" presidential studies, thus delaying research progress, scholars' efforts to grapple with Neustadt's teachings inspired some of the subfield's most significant and enduring research agendas. Many of Neustadt's most important insights, however, such as the link between information, institutions, and presidential decision making, have yet to receive the scrutiny they deserve. To take full advantage of the revolution that Neustadt started, scholars will need to avoid methodological parochialism and finger pointing and instead concentrate their efforts on putting the rest of Neustadt's claims to the test.
Not so long ago, presidency scholarship was frequently maligned, not least by presidency scholars (Edwards 1981; Edwards, Kessel, and Rockman 1993; Heclo 1977b; King 1975; King 1993; Moe 1993; Peterson 1990; Wayne 1983). Critics bemoaned the subfield's focus on individual presidents (the infamous ? = 1 problem), its reliance on detailed case studies and ad hoc or nonexistent theorizing, the use of thick description instead of systematic data analysis, and the failure to generate testable hypotheses. The result, they argued, was a body of work that lacked cumulative findings; compared to scholarship on Congress or election studies, presidency research remained something of an intellectual backwater.
The primary culprit behind the subfield's deplorable state, according to Terry Moe, was Richard Neustadt's landmark work Presidential Power (hereafter PP). First published in 1960, PP's central argument - that a president's power is weak, that it depends primarily on persuasion, and that persuasion is tantamount to bargaining - became imprinted on several generations of presidency scholars, not to mention politicians and even presidents. Although Neustadt published four subsequent editions (1968, 1976, 1980, 1990) that addressed new developments affecting the exercise of presidential power, his core thesis remained largely unchanged. "Presidential weakness was the underlying theme of Presidential Power. This remains my theme," Neustadt wrote in the foreword to the final edition. "Weakness is still what I see: weakness in the sense of a great gap between what is expected of a man (or someday a woman) and assured capacity to carry through" (Neustadt 1990, ix).
As Moe notes, Neustadt's classic work proved immensely influential. With more than a million...