Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T11:32:09.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Reinventing Government on State and Federal Parks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

William Lowry
William Lowry
Affiliation:
Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the last dozen years of the twentieth century, one major change affecting many American public policies consists of increased demands for efficiency. As a result, the demands on bureaucratic agencies responsible for delivery of public goods and services are daunting. Political authorities prescribe economic goals of efficiency and self-sufficiency for agencies while not reducing demands for attainment of political goals like efficacy and equity. Public officials have used techniques encouraging efficient behavior such as downsizing and evaluation through performance-based standards to make government more streamlined while still being effective. Have these changes occurred in different ways at different levels of the federal system? How can we explain those differences? Does the impact on the delivered goods and services vary significantly by level of government?

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 405 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Nathan, Richard P., “The Role of the States,” in Horn, Van, ed., The State of the States (Washington, D.C., 1996), 13–32Google Scholar; Peterson, Paul E., The Price of Federalism (Washington, D.C., 1995)Google Scholar.

2. Koontz, Tomas, “Differences between State and Federal Public Forest Management,” Publius 27 (1997): 15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marlow, Michael, “The Impact of Different Governmental Units in the Regulation of the Workplace Environment,” Public Choice 37 (1981): 349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marvel, Mary, “Implementation and Safety Regulation,” Administration & Society 14 (1982): 15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scholz, John and Wei, Feng Heng, “Regulatory Enforcement in a Federalist System,” American Political Science Review 80 (1986): 1249–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Hollings, Robert L., Reinventing Government: An Analysis and Annotated Bibliography (New York, 1996), 4Google Scholar.

4. DiIulio, John Jr., Garvey, Gerald, and Kettl, Donald F., Improving Government Performance (Washington, D.C., 1993)Google Scholar; Osborne, David and Gaebler, Ted, Reinventing Government (Reading, 1992)Google Scholar; U.S. Congress, Reinventing Government (Washington, D.C., 1992)Google Scholar.

5. Gore, Al, Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less (New York, 1993).Google Scholar

6. Ibid., xl.

7. Hollings 1996: 4.

8. U.S. Congress 1992, 2.

9. Peters, B. Guy, American Public Policy, 4th ed. (Chatham, 1996), 443Google Scholar.

10. Gormley, William Jr., “Accountability Battles in State Administration,” in Horn, Van, ed. The State of the States (Washington, 1996), 161–178Google Scholar; Raimondo, Henry, “State Budgeting,” in Horn, Van, ed. The State of the States (Wash., 1996), 33–50Google Scholar; Horn, Carl Van, “Power to the States,” The State of the States (Wash., 1996), 231–242Google Scholar.

11. Hays, Samuel P., Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency (Cambridge, 1959), 265Google Scholar.

12. Kraft, Michael E. and Vig, Norman J., “Environmental Policy from the 1970s to 2000: An Overview,” in Vig, and Kraft, , eds., Environmental Policy, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C., 2000), 26Google Scholar.

13. Schattschneider, E. E., The Semi-Sovereign People (New York, 1960)Google Scholar.

14. Tiebout, Charles M., “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,” Journal of Political Economy 10 (1956): 416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Jacobs, Jerry, Bidding for Business (Washington, D.C., 1979)Google Scholar; Peterson, Paul, City Limits (Chicago, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lowry, William, The Dimensions of Federalism (Durham, 1992)Google Scholar.

16. Derthick, Martha, The Influence of Federal Grants (Cambridge, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gramlich, Edward, Financing Federal Systems (Northampton, 1997)Google Scholar.

17. Peterson, , The Price of Federalism, 48Google Scholar.

18. Nathan, , “The Role of the States,” 28Google Scholar.

19. Peterson, , The Price of Federalism, 50Google Scholar.

20. Rom, Mark, Peterson, Paul, and Scheve, Kenneth, “Interstate Competition and Welfare Policy,” Publius 28 (1998): 17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Marlow 1981; Marvel 1982; Scholz and Wei 1986.

22. Souder, Jon and Fairfax, Sally, State Trust Lands (Lawrence, 1996), 8Google Scholar.

23. Koontz, , 1997, 36Google Scholar.

24. U.S. General Accounting Office, Similarities and Differences in the Management of Selected State and Federal Land Units (Washington, D.C., 1997), 7Google Scholar.

25. Stein, Robert, Urban Alternatives (Pittsburgh, 1990)Google Scholar.

26. Koontz, 1997; Peterson, 1995, 85–107; Rice, Tom and Sumberg, Alexander, “Civic Culture and Government Performance in the American States,” Publius 27 (1997): 99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scholz and Wei, 1986.

27. Schattschneider, 1960, 10.

28. Koontz 1997; Marlow 1981; Marvel 1982; Peterson 1995; Scholz and Wei 1986.

29. Clarke, Jeanne Nienaber and McCool, Daniel C., Staking out the Terrain, 2d ed. (Albany, 1996)Google Scholar; Lowry, William, The Capacity for Wonder (Washington, D.C., 1994)Google Scholar.

30. Frome, Michael, Regreening the National Parks (Tucson, 1992)Google Scholar; Lowry 1994; O'Brien, Bob, Our National Parks and the Search for Sustainability (Austin, 1999)Google Scholar.

31. Conard, Rebecca, Places of Quiet Beauty (Iowa City, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Myers, Phyllis and Green, Sharon N., State Parks in a New Era (Washington, D.C., 1989)Google Scholar.

32. Shankland, Robert, Steve Mather of the National Parks (New York, 1970)Google Scholar; Tilden, Freeman, The State Parks: Their Meaning in American Life (New York, 1962)Google Scholar.

33. Karel, John, “State Parks,” in Purcell, L. E., ed., The Book of the States (Lexington, 1984), 281–289Google Scholar; Lowry 1994: 71; Myers and Green, 1989.

34. Lowry, William R., “National Parks Policy,” in Davis, Charles, ed., Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics (Boulder, 1997), 150–171Google Scholar; U.S. NPS Statistical Abstracts, various years.

35. Lowry, 1994, 43.

36. Myers and Green, 1989, 63.

37. Interview of 18 April 1994.

38. Though see Lowry, William R., “Public Provision of Intergenerational Good: The Case of Preserved Lands,” American Journal of Political Science 42, no. 4 (1998): 1082–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Karel, 1984; Myers, 1989.

40. Myers and Green, 1989, 7.

41. Though I ran multivariate analyses of these relations, I do not show them in tabular form as all these variables are highly correlated.

42. Gowda, Vanita, “Too Many Visitors, Too Little Money,” Governing 3, 40Google Scholar.

43. Peterson, 1995, 91.

44. Scholz and Wei, 1986.

45. Rice and Sumberg, 1997.

46. Everhart, William C., The National Park Service (Boulder, 1983): 70Google Scholar; Lowry 1997: 160.

47. The 40 most popular sites are identified in U.S. GAO, 1998: 45.

48. Interview with Dave Weizenicker, 18 April 1994.

49. Legislative Research Commission, “Kentucky's State Park System,” (LRC, 1994: xxiii)Google Scholar.

50. Gowda, 2000.

51. Sellars, Richard West, Preserving Nature in the National Parks (New Haven, 1997)Google Scholar.

52. Frome, 1992; Lowry, 1994; O'Brien, 1999.

53. McManus, Reed, “Land of the Fee,” Sierra 84 (1999), 22–24.Google Scholar