Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis study examines whether and where bureaucratic representation occurs within the bureaucratic hierarchy and how intergovernmental representation contributes to government efforts to reduce social disparities and improve gender‐related outcomes. The context is the national/central, ministerial, and regional governments of the United Republic of Tanzania for 14 years (2006–2019). The findings reveal that gender representation at the upper level of government plays a primary role in reducing poverty, but its impact on women's socioeconomic status, i.e., women's education and unemployment rate, is limited within the study context. The findings also highlight that the existence and the impact of intergovernmental representation depend on the primary missions of the government at different levels, policy outcomes of interest, and social contexts where identities are constructed and interpreted. This study claims that the potential interdependence of bureaucratic representation across multiple government agencies and institutions deserves more attention in the representative bureaucracy scholarship.

ABSTRACTThe paper starts out from descriptions of Danish voters as protest voters, and the main problem is whether 'protest' as measured by distrust towards the national politicians is an indicator of a general negative attitude towards politics. A main distinction is made between distrust and lack of efficacy, and a second between national and local politics. It is found that there is hardly any lack of efficacy among the voters, and, further, that local politics is evaluated more positively than national politics. Hence distrust of national politicians is not synonymous with a general rejection of politics. Further, the more positive evaluation of local politics seems to be an expression of a 'size factor' producing not only a difference between state and local government but also between small and large municipalities.

Purpose: This paper gauges the nexus between government expenditures and the output level in Turkey. Our primary research objective is to evaluate the extent to which government expenditures give rise to an increase in GDP taking the Armey curve theory as a basis for the analysis. Succinctly speaking, this theory suggests that the expansionary impact of government expenditure on income level has diminishing nature and beyond a certain threshold public spending impairs rather than accelerates economic activities for several reasons including crowding out, rent-seeking, tax hikes, and public debt surges. Methodology: In order to test the validity of this theory, we use a dataset with annual frequency covering the 1968-2019 period, which is the longest dataset used to carry out this analysis in the literature for Turkey. We set up an ARDL model to estimate the long-run coefficients required for quantifying the optimal level of government spending in Turkey. Results: According to our findings, the estimated function exhibits a concave down functional form, which implies a diminishing marginal effect of government spending on GDP, suggesting thereby that the Armey curve theory is valid for Turkey. In addition, even though government expenditure has topped out in recent years, it is still below the GDP maximising optimal level, which indicates that there is sufficient room for expansionary fiscal policies, with the caveat of a potential negative marginal impact on GDP once the optimal threshold is exceeded. Conclusion: The long-run coefficients from the ARDL estimation reveal that despite a consistent upward trend, government expenditures are still below their optimal level, which implies that there is fiscal space available to the government as far as output maximisation is concerned. However, government expenditures have been on a downward trend recently, which is contrary to output maximisation.

Purpose: This paper gauges the nexus between government expenditures and the output level in Turkey. Our primary research objective is to evaluate the extent to which government expenditures give rise to an increase in GDP taking the Armey curve theory as a basis for the analysis. Succinctly speaking, this theory suggests that the expansionary impact of government expenditure on income level has diminishing nature and beyond a certain threshold public spending impairs rather than accelerates economic activities for several reasons including crowding out, rent-seeking, tax hikes, and public debt surges. Methodology: In order to test the validity of this theory, we use a dataset with annual frequency covering the 1968-2019 period, which is the longest dataset used to carry out this analysis in the literature for Turkey. We set up an ARDL model to estimate the long-run coefficients required for quantifying the optimal level of government spending in Turkey. Results: According to our findings, the estimated function exhibits a concave down functional form, which implies a diminishing marginal effect of government spending on GDP, suggesting thereby that the Armey curve theory is valid for Turkey. In addition, even though government expenditure has topped out in recent years, it is still below the GDP maximising optimal level, which indicates that there is sufficient room for expansionary fiscal policies, with the caveat of a potential negative marginal impact on GDP once the optimal threshold is exceeded. Conclusion: The long-run coefficients from the ARDL estimation reveal that despite a consistent upward trend, government expenditures are still below their optimal level, which implies that there is fiscal space available to the government as far as output maximisation is concerned. However, government expenditures have been on a downward trend recently, which is contrary to output maximisation.

Published interview of Brooks Hays in Nation's Cities (American Municipal Association) ; refers to three "levels" of government—federal, state, and local. Should there be a fourth—metropolitan? Well, the intergovernmental aspect of metropolitan area government is one good example of what Senator Muskie of Maine calls "the fourth dimension" of government. Cities like Philadelphia and New York have an impact on a large area—parts of three states, in their cases—and on all levels of government. Do you see this as bringing about another level of government to handle problems of urban areas which are on rivers which form state boundaries, such as Kansas City or Memphis? It could be an exciting new experiment in government. What account should we take of a city that straddles a state line? The lives of many people are properly affected by that, even when their area isn't large enough to be defined as metropolitan. However, it seems to me that the most pressing problems brought about by urban growth would continue to be in the great metropolitan areas. In the Chicago area, Wisconsin and Indiana are affected. St. Louis laps over into Illinois, and Chattanooga actually extends into two other states besides Tennessee. You can point to Los Angeles and say that only one state is involved but even there the water supply comes from the Colorado River and this becomes an interstate matter in part. Federal agencies seem to be taking into account the metropolitan scope of their progress, aren't they? To some extent. I mentioned the President's instructions about notifying states of federal actions in advance. That's one approach. But other federal efforts can do only so much. I remember the problems of carrying out federal policy with the Office of Price Administration. The administrator had to realize that it could not be controlled without unified approval from the states. And we never got unified approval. We're not getting it today in regard to many of these programs which are directed at our localities. Does this mean that federal agencies which reflect some concern about metropolitan problems are doing it because the states have left a vacuum on the subject? I think there is a certain absence of concern in the state governments, but I don't think it is a vacuum. And what the federal administrator does is in terms of "reciprocity," he can't afford to be high-handed. We do it with the spirit of cooperation between levels of government. James Madison said, "This Federal system will work as long as there is reciprocal forbearance." That is a choice quotation. The kind of government we have launched is unique—we don't expect it to be a perfect mechanism. Human systems have to be resilient. Perhaps for this reason, allocations to states don't adhere rigidly to formulas. Do governors have need for staff positions such as yours and people such as the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations? For neat and effective functioning, we've got to avoid proliferation of offices. Governors—a good many of them, at least—are aware of the magnitude of developing problems. Each has to become something of a specialist himself; it's almost necessary because there is so much interest in this area now. Having expert advice in his office might well serve a useful purpose, however. This is a matter for each state to decide. Do you care to comment on proposals that the President create a White House staff unit to coordinate federal urban programs which are administered by many different agencies? The present view at the White House is that we have established sufficient procedures between the President and individual agencies. We would much prefer the establishment of a Department of Urban Affairs so that the administration of each federal program could be better related to the others. As a general assessment, how do you feel the Administration's programs will fare at the hands of the new Congress? In broad terms, we do think that the Administration's programs will be treated more sympathetically. Looking ahead to 1964's elections, a lot of Congressmen will want to be able to point to their support of the President. Since the Republicans picked up additional seats in the South and showed surprising strength in close races, what meaning do you think this has for the future of a two-party South? Well, you must remember that there were a lot of changes and not just in the South. When voters in New England elect as many Democrats to state and national office as in recent elections, you have a different two-party picture there, too. In both places, however, the real meaning is very hard to define in actual terms. It does prove the independence of the American voter, regardless of where he lives. And, as I said before, maybe the remarkable mobility of our people will mean a better competition between parties in all regions, states, and districts. I hope so because I believe in the two-party system. When I was running for office, I was on record as favoring it. You know, I want every good thing in life for the Republicans except public office. At the same time, if the Southern Republicans are going to run on the idea that "we're more against integration than you Democrats," they are not building up a foundation for a real party organization. I suppose that the national Republican party will have to decide whether to push for such a foundation, or whether to accept whatever kind of candidates happen to come down the pike in the South. With your responsibilities combined with the staff work of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the legislative role of the House and Senate Subcommitees dealing with the subject, where do you think the biggest impact on this "jungle" will be felt? One of the greatest contributions will be to promote the new professionalism and broader outlook which must go into the workings of all levels of government in our time. There may be a long delay in getting through the steps of fact-finding, suggested remedies, debate on them, and decision-making eventually, but all of our effort is aimed at improving each of these vital parts of the democratic process. I think our governmental leaders at all levels will ultimately recognize that their government's decision will always influence the other fellow's, and that expert advice is needed to determine just what that impact will be and what to do about it, in the interest of good government. 14 NATION'S CITIES • WINTER 1962

Published interview of Brooks Hays in Nation's Cities (American Municipal Association) ; governments are two sources which can help the federal government evaluate basic constitutional relationships. These relationships must be dynamic and flexible, because, after all, the mobility of people and of wealth are like nothing we've ever had. Half the American people are living in another state from where they were born. They are continuously moving. Some large groups, like the 800,000 migrant workers, don't stay in one place long enough to be represented by any-one in any government. But the federal government has the biggest stake in improving intergovernmental relations-access to the largest resources places us at the faucet, so to speak. Has there been similar concern in previous administrations? Yes. It began many years ago and was formalized in 1955 with the Kestnbaum Commission which did a great deal of work investigating the effect of grants-in-aid on state and local governments. Later, Governor Pyle, who was on President Eisenhower's staff, assisted Mr. Kestnbaum in attempting to implement their recommendations. Your post is not exactly a new idea? No. Fred Dutton had similar responsibilities earlier, also under President Kennedy. Of course, since the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations was established in 1959, you almost require such a position on the President's staff, if only to be a bridge in intergovernmental relations. What does this Commission do? First of all, it is unique in that it is not a federal agency but rather a hybrid; it was established by Congress with the requirement that, of its 26 members, nine be federal, three public, seven state, and seven local. For example, the American Municipal Association, along with other public interest organizations, recommends the members representing local government. It is not like anything else in Washington in the federal government. Once created, it began to develop thoughtful recommendations for action in the field by all levels of government. I think the Commission has a bright future and has already matured rapidly. I hope that the states, cities, and counties will feel a sort of proprietary interest in its success. The Commission has sponsored legislation on a number of matters. Do you clear it? Not exactly. Frank Bane, the Commission's chairman, has a professional staff which works up legislative proposals for the Commission's approval. If the Commission chooses to sponsor a proposal, it certainly can go to Capitol Hill without White House endorsement. Of course, the Executive Branch members of the Commission, Secretaries Celebrezze and Dillon and Housing Administrator Weaver, have their own staff to analyze Commission recommendations before they make final decisions. How can municipal officials who have their own responsibilities benefit from the existence of your office? They benefit not by having someone with an antenna here, but rather in the whole functioning of the federal government on intergovernmental matters. Municipal needs are growing-any first-rate local official knows that personally-and they are going to be met substantially by intergovernmental cooperation as we improve the mechanisms of coordination and communication. Of course, if you mean that municipal officials already deal with a good many agencies in Washington, I agree. I don't want to enter into the normal workings of local, state, and federal officials which involve specific projects or proposals. They come up through the departments, the ordinary avenues, and, if the White House gets involved, say, to expedite a decision or to clarify policy, that would be handled by Ted Reardon, one of my colleagues on the White House staff. My office serves to emphasize the intergovernmental aspects of federal policies and programs. Since you have held this post, have you been able to identify some of the major problems to be faced if we are to progress in intergovernmental relations? The future direction of grants-in-aid remains to be solved. Allocation of tax resources is very important. The lack of adequate and equitable urban representation in state legislatures has complicated the intergovernmental picture. Channels of communication between levels of government are not all they should be. Has the Commission's work led to some improvement? Yes. One major advance is greater federal-state cooperation on planning. The President recently sent a memorandum to Cabinet members and heads of key independent agencies, asking them to notify state governments of federal plans for activities in their states before they take place so that states could expect something, and act accordingly, also expressing their views of these plans. Advance notice of the location of a large federal installation is one example. And the departments are following through; some have already prepared directives to their own people to make certain that this is implemented at all administrative levels. Most discussions on intergovernmental matters usually "Municipal needs are growing . . . and they are going to be met by intergovernmental cooperation . . . and communication" [quotation above photographs]

Published interview of Brooks Hays in Nation's Cities (American Municipal Association) ; Can we resolve conflicts which divide three levels of government? NATION'S CITIES interviews Brooks Hays about federal responsibilities toward intergovernmental relations For 43 years Brooks Hays, special assistant to the President on intergovernmental relations, has served in a wide variety of local, state, regional, and federal assignments. From 1942 through 1958, he represented Arkansas' 5th District in the U. S. Congress. He was, prior to assuming his present post in December, 1961, a member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations. Mr. Hays, in your position as adviser to the President on intergovernmental matters, do you find yourself drawing much on previous experience? Certainly I do. You could say that I'm an ex-county official, an ex-state official, and ex-department official, and an ex-legislator. I must have been born for government, if not for politics. I ran four times for office before being elected, but I love public service. My first job was with the Treasury Department 43 years ago. When did intergovernmental activities begin to interest you? That's hard to say. Of course, my early experience was in county government, back in Pope County, Arkansas. I made $3 a day during county elections working for the election board. And in those days the court house was the chief focus for local government. A town of 2,000 didn't need much municipal government. But in the 1920s when I was in charge of the Civil Law Division in the Arkansas Attorney General's office, I became very much aware of the overlapping of governmental authority. On a national basis, my interest sharpened because I come from a poor state. It became important to me to know that federal grants, working through the states, were providing for better conditions in communities. I wish I had some case studies in poor towns and agricultural areas to see if victims of poverty have been aided by wise governmental actions. Too often representatives from poor counties go to larger governments for help instead of aligning themselves with fellow rural leaders to get the kind of changes that could lead to sound alternatives and progress. I'm sure that the problems of municipal government might be met much the same way. It is heartening that leadership at a national level, such as the American Municipal Association provides, is getting professionalism into overlapping areas in the states. It is making a real contribution to local government. We are interested in federal policy towards intergovernmental problems. Why is there any policy in this matter? There is pressing need to invade the jungle of governmental conflicts. We have reached a point in our complex society where you can't take state, municipal, and federal government and assume they will function properly with just occasional meetings in the corridor by members of committees appointed by cabinet members, governors, and mayors. Modern government should never be envisioned as a structure; it is an organism. The federal government, of course, has a big stake in effective state and local government. State and municipal 12 NATION'S CITIES • WINTER 1962