Decision Making in the Obama White House

Presidents attract extremely smart, ambitious people to serve in the White House, but the quality of the advice the president receives depends upon how he or she uses the available talent. Chief executives face daunting challenges in evaluating the onslaught of information, judging the perspectives...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Presidential studies quarterly 2011-06, Vol.41 (2), p.244-262
Main Author: PFIFFNER, JAMES P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Advisors
Advocacy
Afghanistan
Analysis
Armed forces
Central Government
Centralization
Decision Making
Economic Policy
Executive branch
Foreign policy
Government cabinets
Government centralization
Information processing
Meetings
Military tribunals
National security
Obama, Barack
Policy making
Political leadership
Political science
Political Scientists
Politics
Presidency
President of the United States
Presidents
Public policy
Terrorism
Terrorists
THE EARLY OBAMA PRESIDENCY
Trials
U.S.A
War
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Presidents attract extremely smart, ambitious people to serve in the White House, but the quality of the advice the president receives depends upon how he or she uses the available talent. Chief executives face daunting challenges in evaluating the onslaught of information, judging the perspectives of their subordinates, and ensuring that they receive advice based on presidential perspectives rather than the priorities of their subordinates. Political scientists who study presidential decision making have come to consider several factors as central to understanding White House organization and process: the level of centralization, the extent of multiple advocacy, and the use of honest brokers to manage advice to the president. This article examines President Obama's decision-making style with respect to these three factors and uses several case studies to illustrate them: economic policy, detainee policy, and decision making on the war in Afghanistan.
ISSN:0360-4918
1741-5705
DOI:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2011.03853.x