Does more federal environmental funding increase or decrease states' efforts?

Clark, Benjamin Y.; Whitford, Andrew B.

doi:10.1002/pam.20547

Cited by 28 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…States' political environment has been operationalized with a variety of different variables such as the preferences of state legislators and the nature of the constraints in the implementation process (Clark and Whitford, 2011;Daley and Garand, 2005;Bressers 1998;Bressers and O'Toole, 1998;Schneider and Ingram, 1990 (Clark and Whitford, 2011;Carley, 2009;Delmas and Montes-Sancho, 2011;Shrimali and Kneifel, 2011;Vachon and Menz, 2006). xii This study assumes that renewable energy development is a subset of environmental issues, so that state legislators' preferences for renewable energy policies moves in the same direction as their commitment to overall environmental policy.…”

Section: Political Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…States' political environment has been operationalized with a variety of different variables such as the preferences of state legislators and the nature of the constraints in the implementation process (Bressers, 1998;Bressers & O'Toole, 1998;Clark & Whitford, 2011;Daley & Garand, 2005;Schneider & Ingram, 1990). 11 The presence of a Democratic governor and majority Democratic representatives have been shown to be positively associated with the adoption of RE policies and investment in RE infrastructure (Delmas & Montes-Sancho, 2011).…”

Section: Other Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

State Renewable Energy Governance: Policy Instruments, Markets, or Citizens

Park

2015

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1990s, state governments in the U.S. have diversified policy instruments to encourage the electric power industry to deploy renewable sources for electricity generation. This study identifies the trends and variations in renewable energy policy governance among states and examines the effectiveness of policy instruments in the deployment of renewable energy sources for electricity production. This study explores 18 state legislative, renewable energy related

show abstract

Section: Political Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…States' political environment has been operationalized with a variety of different variables such as the preferences of state legislators and the nature of the constraints in the implementation process (Bressers, 1998;Bressers & O'Toole, 1998;Clark & Whitford, 2011;Daley & Garand, 2005;Schneider & Ingram, 1990). 11 The presence of a Democratic governor and majority Democratic representatives have been shown to be positively associated with the adoption of RE policies and investment in RE infrastructure (Delmas & Montes-Sancho, 2011).…”

Section: Other Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

State Renewable Energy Governance: Policy Instruments, Markets, or Citizens

Park

2015

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, federal aid may go to communities most in need of assistance (Stein, 1981). Recent literature on the effects of federal grant programs has attempted to account for endogenous distribution of transfers by using instruments based on a state delegation's leadership positions in Congress (Knight, 2002), exploiting discontinuities in fund distributions based on demographic data released at decennial censuses (Gordon, 2004), simultaneously modeling grant receipts and state expenditures (Clark & Whitford, 2011), or using grant distribution formulae to identify the models (Brooks & Phillips, 2010). Under the SRF model, grant recipients are not communities with infrastructure needs, but rather states, and the processes by which the federal government allocates capitalization grants help allay concerns about endogeneity.…”

Section: Research Design and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilevel Instruments for Infrastructure Investment: Evaluating State Revolving Funds for Water

Mullin¹,

Daley²

2017

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, the federal government has introduced complex, multilevel state‐operated revolving loan fund programs as an instrument for promoting state and local investment in national infrastructure priorities while limiting direct federal involvement in implementation. A federally funded state revolving fund (SRF) program combines features of a categorical matching grant to states and a subsidized loan program to localities, both of which should lower the effective price of infrastructure investment and therefore promote higher levels of infrastructure investment. However, little evidence exists to date on whether these programs stimulate new subnational spending or instead displace spending that would have occurred otherwise. We evaluate the stimulus effects of SRFs by examining the two largest such programs, the Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRF Programs. Analyzing 17 years of state‐level panel data, we find evidence that the flow of federal funds to states under the SRF programs stimulates new local investment in wastewater infrastructure, but not in drinking water infrastructure. In discussing several possible explanations for these divergent results, we argue for further research that emphasizes the intergovernmental features of this financing tool.

show abstract

“…In addition, the large body of flypaper effect literature in public economics discusses how local governments spend grant money, with the notion being that grant money "sticks" where it is given (Gramlich 1977;Oates 1979;Wyckoff 1988Wyckoff , 1991Hines and Thaler 1995;Bailey and Connolly 1998;Worthington and Dollery 1999), an argument that could impact the nonprofit sector as well. Public finance theory regarding the flypaper effect indicates that lower level governments may spend just as much or more on programs that receive grant funding (Hines and Thaler 1995;Gruber 2007;Clark and Whitford 2011) rather than reallocating monies to other priority areas. This line of argument would indicate that nonprofit organizations receiving federal grants would spend more on program expenses than they would without federal funding.…”

Section: The Program Enhancement Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Impact of Federal Funding on Faith‐Based and Community Organization Program Spending

Sloan¹,

Grizzle²

2014

Public Budgeting & Finance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the impact of federal funding levels on the program spending of faith-based and community organizations in Kentucky. Prior research indicates that organizations could increase spending on overall program expenses or decrease program spending relative to administrative costs as a result of greater reporting demands from federal funders. Three models of program spending are proposed: increased program spending relative to administrative costs (program enhancement effect), decreased program spending relative to administrative costs (administrative enhancement effect), and no net effect (neutral program-spending effect). The analysis supports the program enhancement effect and estimates that federal funding has a positive relationship with increased program spending relative to other expenses in faith-based and community organizations.Relationships between government and nonprofit organizations come in a variety of arrangements, and one of the most formalized involves funding from federal grants and contracts. In 2007, government grants and fees for contracted services provided 29.8 percent of overall public charity revenue and 48.6 percent of revenue for human service organizations (Wing, Roeger, and Pollak 2010). While governments seek to bring about societal changes in keeping with their political agendas (Hall 2010), as a substantial source of revenue for some organizations, federal funds can alter an individual organization's spending behavior. Nonprofit organizations within the United States have important implications for delivery of public services, and many eminent nonprofit scholars have labeled the increasing delivery of public

show abstract

Does more federal environmental funding increase or decrease states' efforts?

Abstract: We examine the flow of federal grants-in-aid

Cited by 28 publications

References 29 publications

State Renewable Energy Governance: Policy Instruments, Markets, or Citizens

State Renewable Energy Governance: Policy Instruments, Markets, or Citizens

Multilevel Instruments for Infrastructure Investment: Evaluating State Revolving Funds for Water

Assessing the Impact of Federal Funding on Faith‐Based and Community Organization Program Spending

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About