Does institutional entrenchment shape instrument adjustment?: Assessing instrument constituency influences on American and Australian motor fuel taxation

Abstract

This article compares the long-run adjustment of transport finance instruments in the US and Australia. Change and continuity in these policy instruments highlights how the institutional context can influence an instrument constituency’s influence within a policy subsystem. In the US, a mature instrument constituency created and entrenched motor fuel taxes as an exclusive resource for implementing transport policy. In Australia, fuel taxes remained exposed to the politics of inter-governmental competition and fiscal rivalry across subsystems, leaving less opportunity for instrument constituency leverage. We explore the circumstances under which instrument constituencies can either constrain or facilitate adjusting transportation policy through fiscal mechanisms, especially when the efficacy of established instruments appears to decline. The policy paradigm of American transportation rests upon the entrenched segregation of fuel tax revenues for infrastructure spending. When fuel tax revenues grew from the 1980s until 2008, transportation policy yielded an expanding stream of programme outputs – building the interstate highway network and upgrading part of the nation’s urban transit infrastructure. The instrument constituency that shaped the Highway Trust Fund found a privileged position within the transportation subsystem. In Australia, similar instruments have not been entrenched and have thus been open to political influences beyond the subsystem. The effects of institutional configuration on instrument constituency participation in policy change become most apparent during times of austerity, or when fiscal instruments fail to deliver expected revenues. Electrification of vehicle fleets is now creating such disruption in the transportation subsystem.

One hammer for all nails? Testing the autonomy of policy instrument attitudes

“…Previous studies typically focused on a single instrument or several instruments in a particular domain (e.g., see the extensive body of literature on environmental protection). In the literature reviewed above, the tendency to support an instrument (or a mix of instruments) was only found among some decision makers—instrumentalists in Linder and Peters (1992) or there were case studies focused on specific ICs (e.g., Béland et al, 2018; Perl & Burke, 2018; Voß & Simons, 2014). It remains unclear to what extent APIAs are a general trait (i.e., signal) that can be distinguished from the nature of the problems and contexts in which they are examined by people (i.e., noise).…”

How Ideas and Institutions Shape the Politics of Public Policy

“…Recent assessments suggest that such automatic stabilizing mechanisms do have some effect in changing policy outputs and outcomes at t 2 , but that where such mechanisms are poorly insulated from control by politicians, they are vulnerable to erosion or reversal (Weaver 2016). Trust funds can also be subject to external shocksfor example, the growth in auto fuel efficiency standards and increase in use of electric vehicles can lead to declines in transportation trust funds funded by motor fuel taxation if the tax rates are not adjusted over time (Perl and Burke 2018).…”

Policy Transfer and Instrument Constituency: Explaining the Adoption of Conditional Cash Transfer in the Philippines

“…More importantly, instrument constituencies play an important role in policy change. For instance, the varying ability of instrument constituency to create and maintain support for motor fuel tax has been used to explain the diverging instrument use in Australia and United States (Perl & Burke, ).…”