Presidency Success and Efficiency in the Theories of Neustadt and Skowronek’s

Examining the conceptualizations and theories of Neustadt and Skowronek’s in comparative perspective, this essay makes the principal argument that both of these theories only represent partial explanations of how success and efficiency is achieved in the context of the Presidency. With Neustadt focusing saliently on the President’s micro-level elite interactions and with Skowronek adopting a far more populist and public opinion-based framework, both only serve to explain some atomistic facets of the Presidency. As such, neither is truly collectively exhaustive, or mutually exclusive of the other, in accounting for the facets of the Presidency in either a modern day or historical analytical framework. Rather, they can best be viewed as complementary theories germane to explaining different facets of the Presidency, and the different strengths and weaknesses of specific Administrations throughout history.
Beginning with a comparative analysis of the manner in which Neustadt and Skowronek conceptualize of the Presidency itself, the essay notes that Neustadt’s theory operates at the micro level while Skowronek’s operates at the macro level. Arguing that this difference is salient in creating a division of labor between the two, the essay moves forward to examine each theory’s ability to expatiate upon differences between Presidents by applying them to both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. Noting Neustadt’s superiority vis-à-vis Johnson and Skowronek’s greater potency as it pertains to Nixon, and how Reagan best shows the strengths and weaknesses of both authors, this essay proposes that this discussion lends further support to the notion that each theory is best suited to examining different facets of the Presidency.
Concludin...

... middle of paper ...

...he end, the analysis conducted above makes it clear that neither Neustadt’s nor Skowronek’s theories are unified theories of the Presidency which are capable of explaining the full range of variation as it pertains to Presidential records and histories. Rather, each theory is best conceptualized of as representing a single sphere of the Presidency, and each thus serves to potently explain Presidentially-related phenomena which fall within their scope conditions and reach. With this in mind, it is difficult to conceive of a single theory being capable of explaining the full gamut of variation associated with the Presidency. Rather, and as elaborated upon above, each is most successful in the context of its scope conditions, and theoretical hybridization likely represents the best pathway towards explaining the full gamut of variation associated with the Presidency.