Devolution and transport policy for the working poor: The case of the US job access and reverse commute program

Planning Theory and Practice

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 7-25

  Blumenberg, Evelyn ^a   Schweitzer, Lisa ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Devolution; Low income; New federalism; Transport policy; Welfare to work

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; FEDERAL SYSTEM; TRANSPORTATION POLICY; WELFARE ECONOMICS;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33644827636     PISSN: 14649357     EISSN: 1470000X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14649350500497364     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Agranoff, R. (2001) Managing within the matrix: Do collaborative intergovernmental relations exist? Publius, 31, pp. 31 - 58.
2. Agranoff, R. and McGuire, M. (1998) Multi-network management; collaboration and the hollow state in local economic policy Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, pp. 67 - 92.
3. Beer, S.(1993) To Make a Nation: The Rediscovery of American Federalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Berry, F.S. and Berry, W.(1999) Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview.
5. Blumenberg, E. (2004) En-gendering effective planning: Transportation policy and low-income women Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3), pp. 269 - 281.
6. Blumenberg, E. and Haas, P.(2002) The Travel Behavior and Needs of the Poor: A Study of Welfare Recipients in Fresno County. San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University.
7. Blumenberg, E. and Ong, P. (2001) Cars, buses, and jobs: Welfare recipients and employment access in Los Angeles Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1756, pp. 22 - 31.
8. Blumenberg, E. and Miller, D. and Garrett, M. and Schweitzer, L. and Kitsis, K. and Manville, M. and Mallavarapu, B.(2003) California Transportation Needs Assessment: The Transportation Barriers of Welfare Recipients and Low-Wage Workers. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies.
9. Boschken, H.L. (1998) Institutionalism: Intergovernmental exchange, administration-centred behavior, and policy outcomes in urban agencies Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, pp. 585 - 614.
10. Bozeman, B. and Kingsley, G. (1998) Risk culture in public and private organizations Public Administration Review, 58, pp. 10 - 18.
11. Brady, H.E. and Sprague, M.H. and Gey, F.C. and Wiseman, M.(2000) Seasonal employment dynamics and welfare use in agricultural and rural California counties. In Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform. Kalamazoo, W.E: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
12. Buchanan, J.M. (1995) Federalism as an ideal political order and an objective for constitutional reform Publius, 25, pp. 19 - 27.
13. Cervero, R. and Sandoval, J.O. and Landis, J. (2002) Transportation as a stimulus of welfare-to-work - private versus public mobility Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, pp. 50 - 63.
14. Cho, C.L. and Wright, D.S. (2001) Managing carrots and sticks: Changes in state adminstrator's perceptions of cooperative federalism during the 1990s Publius-The Journal of Federalism, 31, pp. 57 - 80.
15. County of Los Angeles.(2000) Assessing the Transportation Needs of Welfare-to-Work Participants in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles, CA: Urban Research Division, Chief Administrative Office.
16. Derthick, M.(2001) Keeping the Compound Republic. Washington, DC: Brookings University Press.
17. Dilger, R.J. (1998) TEA-21: Transportation policy, pork barrel politics, and American federalism Publius-the Journal of Federalism, 28, pp. 49 - 69.
18. Dilger, R.J. (2000) The study of American federalism at the turn of the century State and Local Government Review, 32, pp. 98 - 107.
19. Dilger, R.J. (2002) State and local government officials' perspectives on intergovernmental relationships in surface transportation policy: 1987 and 2001 Publius, 32, pp. 65 - 85.
20. Edner, S. and McDowell, B.D. (2002) Surface-transportation funding in a new century: Assessing one slice of the federal marble cake Publius, 32, pp. 7 - 24.
21. Eisinger, P. (1997) Cities in the new federal order: Effects of devolution LaFollette Policy Report, 8, pp. 1 - 7.
22. Elazar, D.J.(1994) The American Mosaic: The Impact of Time, Space, and Culture on American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23. Evans, D. (1994) Policy and pork. The use of pork barrel projects to build policy coalitions in the House-of-Representatives American Journal of Political Science, 38, pp. 894 - 917.
24. Fisher, J.(1998) Nongovernments: NGOs and the Political Development of the Third World. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.
25. Gage, R.W. and McDowell, B.D. (1995) ISTEA and the role of MPOs in the new transportation environment: A midterm assessment Publius, 25, pp. 133 - 154.
26. Garrett, M. and Taylor, B. (1999) Reconsidering social equity in public transit Berkeley Planning Journal, 13, pp. 6 - 27.
27. Gray, V. (1973) Innovation in the states: A diffusion study American Political Science Review, 67, pp. 1174 - 1185.
28. Ingram, H.(1990) Implementation: A review and a suggested framework. In Public Administration: The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NH: Chatham House.
29. Kincaid, J. (1998) The devolution tortoise and the centralization hare New England Economic Review, pp. 13 - 40. May/June
30. Kincaid, J. (1999) Defacto devolution and urban defunding: The priority of persons over places Journal of Urban Affairs, 21, pp. 135 - 167.
31. Knight, B. (2004) Parochial interests and the centralized provision of local public goods: Evidence from congressional voting on transportation projects Journal of Public Economics, 88, pp. 845 - 866.
32. Krehbiel, K.(1991) Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
33. Lee, F.E. (2003) Geographic politics in the US House of Representatives: coalition building and distribution of benefits American Journal of Political Science, 4, pp. 714 - 728.
34. Lee, F.E. (2004) Bicameralism and geographic politics: Allocating funds in the House and Senate Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29, pp. 185 - 213.
35. Lewis, P.G. and Sprague, M.(1997) Federal Transportation Policy and the Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
36. Nathan, R.P. and Gais, T.L. (1998) Early findings about the newest new federalism for welfare Publius, 28, pp. 95 - 104.
37. Neuberger, Z.(2002) States are Already Cutting Child Care and TANF-Funded Programs. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
38. Office of the Federal Register.(2002) Federal Register. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration.
39. Olson, B.K. (2000) The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: the failure of metropolitan planning organizations to reform federal transportation policy in metropolitan areas Transportation Law Journal, 28, pp. 147 - 183.
40. Ong, P. (1996) Work and car ownership among welfare recipients Social Work Research, 2, pp. 255 - 262.
41. Ong, P. (2002) Car ownership and welfare-to-work Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, pp. 239 - 252.
42. Partnership (n.d.) ITS. Transportation Management through Technology (Los Angeles, CA, Southern California Association of Governments).
43. Peterson, P.E. (1996) Devolution's Price Yale Law & Policy Review/Yale Journal on Regulation. Symposium: Constructing a new federalism, 14, pp. 111 - 122.
44. Presser, H. and Cox, A. (1997) The work schedules of low-educated American women and welfare reform Monthly Labor Review, 120, pp. 25 - 34.
45. Puentes, R. and Bailey, L.(2003) Improving Metropolitan Decision Making in Transportation: Greater Funding and Devolution for Greater Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
46. Rosenbloom, S.(1994) Travel by Women. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
47. Scheberle, D.(1997) Federalism and Environmental Policy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
48. Shepsle, K.A. and Weingast, B.R. (1981) Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice Public Choice, 37, pp. 503 - 519.
49. Shepsle, K.A. and Weingast, B.R. (1994) Positive theories of congressional institutions Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19, pp. 149 - 179.
50. Schram, S.F. and Weissert, C.S. (1997) The state of American federalism, 1996-1997 Publius, 27, pp. 1 - 31.
51. Schulz, D. and Gilbert, S.(1996) Women and transit security: A new look at an old issue. In Women's Travel Issues. Proceedings from the Second National Conference, October 1996. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
52. US Department of Health and Human Services.(nd) Summary. Final Rule. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. Washington DC: Administration for Children and Families. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/exsumcl.htm
53. US Federal Transit Administration.(2000) Use of TANF, WtW, and Job Access Funds for Transportation. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
54. US General Accounting Office.(1999) Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program in its First Year. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
55. US General Accounting Office.(2001) Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT's Job Access Program was not Followed, GAO-02-213. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
56. US General Accounting Office.(2002) DOT has Made Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program but has not Evaluated the Impact, GAO-02-640T. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
57. Vincent-Jones, P. (2002) Values and purpose in government: Central-local relations in regulatory perspective Journal of Law and Society, 29, pp. 27 - 55.
58. Walker, D.(1999) The Rebirth of Federalism: Slouching toward Washington. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
59. Watson, K. and Gold, S.D.(1997) The Other Side of Devolution: The Shifting Relationships between State and Local Governments. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
60. Wiseman, M. (1996) Welfare reform in the United States: A background paper Housing Policy Debate, 7, pp. 595 - 648.