Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T01:07:29.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pressure Cooker Politics: Partisanship and Symbolism in State Certification of Federal Stimulus Funds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Edward Alan Miller  and
David Blanding
Edward Alan Miller*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, USA
David Blanding
Affiliation:
Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
*
David Blanding, Brown University, Box 1844, 36 Prospect Street, Providence, RI 02906, USA Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To access funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, state governors had to formally certify their intent to do so within 45 days of the law's enactment. All governors eventually certified, but with considerable variation in celerity. This study employs event history techniques to model the probability of certifying the ARRA. It argues that the statute's design combined with economic distress within the states rendered manifest rejection of the law politically infeasible but, for state officials with certain partisan commitments, left open the possibility of symbolic resistance or support in the form of time to certification. State leaders relied on party identification to guide their decisions, resulting in markedly different propensities toward certification for Republican and Democratic governors. Results lend credence to this thesis: States with Republican governors were nearly 60% less likely to certify the ARRA on a given day than states with Democratic governors. This finding suggests that when economic constraints and policy design foreclose actual rejection of a federal law, state policymakers may rely on party labels to register their approbation or disapprobation through other means, including the amount of time taken to accept federal funding.

Keywords

budgetingeconomic policyFederal/Stategovernorspolicy process
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 58 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012

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

Albritton, Robert B. 1989. “Impacts of Intergovernmental Financial Incentives on State Welfare Policymaking and Interstate Equity.” Publius 19 (2):127–42..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Mahally D., Petus, Carrie, and Haider-Markel, Donald. 2004. “Making the National Local: Specifying the Conditions for National Government Influence on State Policymaking.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4 (3):318–44..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrilleaux, C. J., and Miller, M. E.. 1988. “The Political Economy of State Medicaid Policy.” American Political Science Review 82 (4):1089–107..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Frances S., and Berry, William D.. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.” American Political Science Review 84 (2):395–415..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Frances S., and Berry, William D.. 2007. “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research.” In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, Paul A.. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 223–260.Google Scholar
Beyle, Thad L. 1988. “The Governor as Innovator in the Federal System.” Publius 18 (3):131–52..Google Scholar
Beyle, Thad, and Ferguson, Margaret. 2008. “Governors and the Executive Branch.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 9th edition, eds. Gray, Virginia and Hansen, Richard L.. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 192–228.Google Scholar
Chubb, John E. 1985. “The Political Economy of Federalism.” The American Political Science Review 79 (4):994–1015..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cline, Kurt D. 2003. “Influences on Intergovernmental Implementation: The States and the Superfund.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 3 (1):66–83..Google Scholar
Derthick, Martha. 1970. The Influence of Federal Grants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, Shalia, “6 Governors May Reject Portions of Stimulus,” New York Times, February 21, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/us/21govs.html? pagewanted=print (accessed March 10, 2009).Google Scholar
Ellmendorf, Douglas W. 2009. Letter to Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, United States Senate. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.Google Scholar
Gravelle, Jane G., Hungerford, Thomas L., and Labonte, Marc. 2009. Economic Stimulus: Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1994. “Competition, Emulation, and Policy Innovation.” In New Perspectives in American Politics, eds. Dodd, Lawrence and Jillson, Calvin. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 230–248.Google Scholar
Grogan, Colleen M. 1994. “Political-Economic Factors Influencing State Medicaid Policy.” Political Research Quarterly 47 (3):589–622..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grogan, Colleen M. 1999. “The Influence of Federal Mandates on State Medicaid and AFDC Decision-Making.” Publius 29 (3):1–30..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, Scott P. and Glick, Henry R.. 1997. “The Role of Agenda Setting in Policy Innovation: An Event History Analysis of Living-Will Laws.” American Politics Research 25 (4): 497–516..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas and Dunk, Emily Van. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” American Political Science Review 87 (4):955–62..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaccard, James. 2001. Interaction Effects in Logistic Regression (Series/Number 07-135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Nicholas, Oliff, Phil, and Koulish, Jeremy. 2009. An Update on State Budget Cuts: At Least 34 States Have Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents, but the Federal Economic Recovery Package Is Reducing the Harm. Washington, DC: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.Google Scholar
Kim, Byungkyu and Fording, Richard C.. 2010. “Second-Order Devolution and the Implementation of TANF in the US States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10 (4):341–67..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. Scott and Freese, Jeremy. 2005. Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes Using Stata. 2nd edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
McNichol, Elizabeth and Lav, Iris J.. 2009. State Budget Troubles Worsen. Washington, DC: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.Google Scholar
Miller, Edward A. 2004. “Advancing Comparative State Policy Research: Toward Conceptual Integration and Methodological Expansion.” State and Local Government Review 36 (1):35–58..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Edward A. 2005. “State Health Policy Making Determinants, Theory, and Methods: A Synthesis.” Social Science and Medicine 61 (12):2639–57..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Edward A. 2006. “Explaining Incremental and Non-Incremental Change: Medicaid Nursing Facility Reimbursement Policy, 1980-1998.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 6 (2):117–50..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Edward A. 2008. “Federal Administrative and Judicial Oversight of Medicaid: Policy Legacies and Tandem-Institutions under the Boren Amendment.” Publius 28 (2):315–42..Google Scholar
Miller, Edward A., and Banaszak-Holl, Jane. 2005. “Cognitive and Normative Determinants of State Policy Making Behavior: Lessons from the Sociological Institutionalism.” Publius 35 (2):191–216..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Edward A., and Wang, Lili. 2009a. “The Influence of National Policy Change on Sub-national Policymaking: Medicaid Nursing Facility Reimbursement in the American States.” Social Science and Medicine 68 (11):1926–34..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Edward A., and Wang, Lili. 2009b. “Maximizing Federal Medicaid Dollars: Nursing Home Provider Tax Adoption, 2000-2004.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 34 (6):899–930..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michael, and Vergari, Sandra. 1998. “Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms.” Journal of Politics 60 (1), 126–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z., and Lee, Mei-Hsien. 1995. “Legislating Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (3):599–627..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogletree, Charles J. 2004. All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Pavalko, Eliza A. 1989. “State Timing of Policy Adoption: Workmen's Compensation in the United States, 1909-1929.” American Journal of Sociology 95 (3):592–615..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1976. “Parties in State Politics.” In Politics in the American States, 3rd edition, eds. Herbert Jacob and Kenneth Vines. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 51–82.Google Scholar
Rucker, Philip, “At Meeting, Governors Share Plans for Stimulus Funds: Some Republicans Say They'll Reject Some of the Money,” Washington Post, 22 February, 2009a. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022101682.html (accessed February 22, 2009).Google Scholar
Rucker, Philip, “Last Holdout Governor Will Now Accept Stimulus Money,” Washington Post, 4 April, 2009b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040301776.html (accessed April 4, 2009).Google Scholar
Schneider, Saundra K., and Jacoby, William G.. 1996. “Influences on Bureaucratic Policy Initiatives in the American States.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6 (4):495–522..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderman, Gail L., and Orfield, Gary. 2006. “Domesticating a Revolution: No Child Left Behind Reforms and State Administrative Response.” Harvard Educational Review 76 (4):526–56..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, F. J. 1998. “Federalism and the Medicaid Challenge.” In Medicaid and Devolution: A View from the States, eds. Thompson, F. J. and Dilulio, J. J.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 258–296.Google Scholar
Welch, Susan, and Thompson, Kay. 1980. “The Impact of Federal Incentives on State Policy Innovation.” American Journal of Political Science 24 (4):715–29..CrossRefGoogle Scholar