The American recovery and reinvestment Act (ARRA): A critical examination of accountability and transparency in the Obama administration

Public Performance and Management Review

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 202-226

  Hall, Jeremy L ^a   Jennings Jr , Edward T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

accountability; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA); fiscal federalism; grants in aid; Obama; transparency

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864945926     PISSN: 15309576     EISSN: 15579271     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576350110     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. Arrow, K.J., Chenery, H.B., Minhas, B.S., & Solow, R.M. (1961). Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. Review of Economics and Statistics, 43(3), 225-250.
2. Bellone, C., & Goerl, G. (1992). Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 130-134.
3. Chubb, J.E. (1985). The political economy of federalism. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 994-1015.
4. deLeon, L. (1998). Accountability in a reinvented government. Public Administration, 76(3), 539-558.
5. Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376-417.
6. Frederickson, D.G., & Frederickson, H.G. (2006). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
7. Gamkhar, S. (2000). Is the response to state and local highway spending symmetric to increases and decreases in federal highway grants? Public Finance Review, 28(1), 3-25.
8. Gamkhar, S., & Oates, W.E. (1996). Asymmetries in the response to increases and decreases in intergovernmental grants: Some empirical findings. National Tax Journal, 49(4), 501-512.
9. Government Accountability Office. (2010a). Recovery Act: Opportunities to improve management and strengthen accountability over states' and localities' use of funds. GAO-10-999.
10. Government Accountability Office. (2010b). Recovery Act: States' and localities' uses of funds and actions needed to address implementation challenges and bolster accountability. GAO 10-604.
11. Government Accountability Office. (2010c). Recovery Act: One year later, states' and localities' uses of funds and opportunities to strengthen accountability. GAO-10-437.
12. Gramlich, E.M., Courant, P., & Rubinfeld, D.L. (1979). The stimulative effects of intergovernmental grants: Or why money sticks where it hits. In P. Mieszkowsky & W. Oakland (Eds.), Fiscal federalism and grants in aid (pp. 5-21). Washington, DC: Committee on Urban Public Economics, and the Urban Institute.
13. Hall, J.L. (2008a). The forgotten regional organizations: Creating capacity for economic development. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 110-125.
14. Hall, J.L. (2008b). Assessing local capacity for federal grant-getting. American Review of Public Administration, 38(4), 463-479.
15. Hall, J.L. (2008c). The changing federal grant structure and its potential effects on state/local community development efforts. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 20(1), 46-71.
16. Hall, J.L. (2010a). The distribution of federal economic development grant funds: A consideration of need and the rural/urban divide. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(4), 311-324.
17. Hall, J.L. (2010b). Giving and taking away: Exploring federal grants' differential burden on metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 40(2), 257-274.
18. Handley, D.M. (2008). Strengthening the intergovernmental grant system: Long-term lessons for the federal-local relationship. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 126-136.
19. Hedge, D.M. (1983). Fiscal dependency and the state budget process. Journal of Politics, 45(1), 198-208.
20. Hill, E. (1998). Principles for rethinking the federal government's role in economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 12, 299-312.
21. Hines, J.R., & Thaler, R.H. (1995). Anomalies: The flypaper effect. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 217-226.
22. Hughes, O. (1994). Public management and administration: an introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press.
23. Koppell, J.G.S. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of "multiple accountabilities disorder." Public Administration Review 65(1), 94-108.
24. Lynn, L. (1992). Management without managers: The false promise of administrative reform. Paper presented at the colloquium La modernisation de la gestion publique-les leçons de l'expérience, Paris.
25. McCubbins, M., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 16-79.
26. Moe, R. (1994). The "reinventing government" exercise: Misinterpreting the problem, misjudging the consequences. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 111-122.
27. Morgan, D.R., & Shih, M.-C. (1991). Targeting state and federal aid to city needs. State and Local Government Review, 23(2), 60-68.
28. Moynihan, D.P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
29. Nathan, R.P., & Doolittle, F.C. (1985). Federal grants: Giving and taking away. Political Science Quarterly, 100(1), 53-74.
30. Newcomer, K. (1998). The changing nature of accountability: The role of the inspector general in federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 58(2), 129-136.
31. O'Brien, R.M., Clark, M., & Kamieniecki, S. (1984). Open and closed systems of decision making: The case of toxic waste management. Public Administration Review, 44(4), 334-340.
32. Piotrowski, S.J., & Rosenbloom, D.H. (2002). Nonmission-based values in results-oriented public management: The case of freedom of information. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 643-657.
33. Posner, P. (2007). Assessing federal program performance: Observations on the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool and its use in the budget process. Public Performance and Management Review, 30(3), 351-368.
34. Posner, P.L. (2002). Accountability challenges of third-party government. In L.M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
36. Rich, M.J. (1989). Distributive politics and the allocation of federal grants. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 193-213.
37. Romzek, B.S., and & Dubnick, M.J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227-238.
38. Stine, W.F. (1994). Is local government revenue response to federal aid symmetrical? Evidence from Pennsylvania County governments in an era of retrenchment. National Tax Journal, 47(4), 799-816.
39. U.S. Congress. (2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1). 111th Congress. Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z? c111:H.R.1:/.
40. Volden, C. (1999). Asymmetric effects of intergovernmental grants: Analysis and implications for U.S. welfare policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 29(3), 51-73.
41. Westin, S.M. (1998). Balancing flexibility and accountability: Grant program design in education and other areas. Testimony before the Education Task Force, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate. GAO/T-GGD/HEHS-98-94.