Redistributive policy and devolution: Is state administration a road block (grant) to equitable access to federal funds?

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 613-632

  Collins, Brian K ^a   Gerber, Brian J ^b  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749008763     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muj010     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Ai, Chunrong, and Edward C. Norton. 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economic Letters 80:123-29.
2. Alt, James E., Gary King, and Curtis S. Signorino. 2001. Aggregating among binary, count, and duration models: Estimating the same quantities from different levels of data. Political Analysis 9 (1): 21-44.
3. Beam, David R., and Timothy J. Conlan. 2001. Grants. In The tools of governance: A guide to the new governance, ed. L. Salamon, 340-80. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Bickers, Kenneth N., and Robert M. Stein. 2004. Interlocal cooperation and the distribution of federal grant awards. Journal of Politics 66 (3): 800-822.
5. Boyne, George. 1998. Bureaucratic theory meets reality: Public choice and service contracting in U.S. local government. Public Administration Review 58 (6): 474-84.
6. Brown, Anthony, and Mark Daniels. 1988. The preservation of federal priorities: Connecticut and the CDBG small cities program. International Journal of Public Administration 11 (2): 155-72.
7. Brown, Robert D., and Claire L. Felbinger. 1989. Applicant perceptions of state priorities in the Illinois small cities CDBG program: Implications for local targeting. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 19 (2): 83-94.
8. Brown, Trevor L., and Matthew Potoski. 2003a. Managing contract performance: A transaction costs approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22:275-97.
9. _. 2003b. Contract-management capacity in municipal and county governments. Public Administration Review 63 (2): 153-64.
10. _. 2003c. Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government service production decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (4): 441-68.
11. CDBG: a 25-year history. 1999. Journal of Housing and Community Development 56 (4): 20-25.
12. Cho, Chung-Lae, Christine A. Kelleher, Deil S. Wright, and Susan Webb Yackee. 2005. Translating national policy objectives into local achievements across planes of governance and among multiple actors: Second-order devolution and welfare reform implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:31-54.
13. Coase, Ronald. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica 4:386-405.
14. Collins, Brian K., and Brian J. Gerber. 2002. The cost-effectiveness of relocating the Office of Rural Community Affairs: Volume 1. http://www5.tltc. ttu.edu/brcollin/working_papers.htm (accessed 22 January 2006).
15. _. 2003. The Texas Office of Rural Community Affairs: Will state agency reorganization improve rural health care in Texas? Texas Journal of Rural Health 21 (2): 20-30.
16. Dicke, Lisa A. 2002. Ensuring accountability in human services contracting: Can stewardship theory fill the bill? American Review of Public Administration 32 (4): 455-70.
17. Dommel, Paul R. 1980. Targeting community development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
18. Eggertsson, Thrainn. 1990. Economic behavior and institutions: Principles of neoinstitutional economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Ervin, Osbin L. 1985. The state-local partnership and national objectives: An examination of the CDBG small cities program. Policy Studies Journal 13 (3): 634-42.
20. Fellowes, Matthew C., and Gretchen Rowe. 2004. Politics and the new American welfare states. American Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 362-73.
21. Fossett, James W. 1987. The consequences of shifting control: Federal and state distribution of small cities CDBG funds in four southern states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 17 (4): 65-80.
22. Gakhar, Shama. 2002. Federal intergovernmental grants and the states: Managing devolution. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
23. Giles, William A., Gerald T. Gabris, and Dale A. Krane. 1980. Dynamics in rural policy development: The uniqueness of county government. Public Administration Review 40 (1): 24-28.
24. Hale, George E., and Marian L. Palley. 1981. The politics of federal grants. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
25. Herzik, Eric B., and John P. Pelissero. 1986. Decentralization, redistribution, and community development: A reassessment of the small cities CDBG program. Public Administration Review 46 (1): 31-36.
26. Huang, Chi, and Todd G. Shields. 2000. Interpretation of interaction effects in logit and probit analyses: Reconsidering the relationship between registration laws, education, and voter turnout. American Politics Review 28 (1): 80-95.
27. Kenney, Genevieve, and Debbie Chang. 2004. The state children's health insurance program: Successes, shortcomings, and challenges. Health Affairs 23 (5): 51-63.
28. Kettl, Donald F. 1993. Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
29. Krane, Dale. 1987. Devolution of the small cities CDBG program in Mississippi. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 17 (4): 81-96.
30. Laverty, Kevin. 1999. Smart contracting for local government services: Process and experiences. Westport, CT: Praeger.
31. McKenna, Frank, Jr., Phillip A. Russo, Jr., H. Kenneth Hilbbeln, and Douglas H. Shumavon. 1990. National fiscal policy changes and the impact on rural governments: CDBG cuts and the loss of GRS. Public Administration Quarterly 14 (3): 324-53.
32. Milward, H. Brinton. 1996. Symposium on the hollow state: Capacity, control, and performance in interorganizational settings. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6:193-95.
33. Morgan, David R., and Robert E. England. 1984. The small cities block grant program: An assessment of programmatic change under state control. Public Administration Review 44 (6): 477-82.
34. Musgrave, Richard. 1997. Devolution, grants, and fiscal competition. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (4): 65-72.
35. North, Douglass C. 1981. Structure and change in economic history. New York: W. W. Norton.
36. Norton, Edward C., Hua Wang, and Chunrong Ai. 2004. Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. Stata Journal 4 (2): 154-67.
37. Ostrom, Elinor, Roy Gardner, and James Walker. 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
38. Peterson, Paul E. 1981. City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Powers, Elizabeth T. 2000. Block granting welfare: Fiscal impact on the states. Economic Development Quarterly 14 (4): 323-39.
40. Sclar, Elliot D. 2000. You don't always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
41. Warner, Mildred. 2001. State policy under devolution: Redistribution and centralization. National Tax Journal 54 (3): 541-56.
42. Watson, Sheilah S. 1992. Decentralizing community-development decisions: A study of Oklahoma small cities program. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 22 (1): 109-22.
43. _. 1993. Community characteristics and redistribution efforts: Oklahoma participation in the CDBG small cities program. Journal of Urban Affairs 15 (2): 191-205.
44. Weil, Alan. 2003. Putting Medicaid at risk. Hastings Center Report 33 (3): 49.
45. Williams, Walter. 1980. Government by agency: Lessons from social program grants-in-aid experience. New York: Academic Press.
46. Williamson, Oliver E. 1987. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
47. _. 1997. Transaction cost economics and public administration. In Public priority setting: Rules and cost, ed. P. B. Boorsma, K. Aarts, and A. E. Steenge, 19-37. London: Kluwer.
48. Winston, Pamela. 2002. Welfare policymaking in the states: The devil is in the devolution. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.