Suchergebnisse

ObjectivesTo determine if state governments utilize rainy day funds (RDFs) for political purposes in the aftermath of disasters rather than their intended purpose of combating state cyclical economic downturns.MethodsThis research draws from multiple state‐level data sources to construct a panel data set from 1992 to 2010.ResultsDisaster damage, relief funds, and politics all influence the usage of states' RDFs. We also find that the RDF balance is lower when disaster damages increase, when it is an election year, and the same party holds party control of the governor and legislature.ConclusionThe findings of this empirical research are consistent with the literature about the importance state‐level politics plays in the use of state stabilization funds intended for cyclical economic downturns as opposed to providing more politically expedient disaster relief.

ObjectiveAttribution of responsibility for government performance in a federalist system is challenging but necessary for democratic accountability. We identify competing hypotheses for how attributions for government performance might arise in social media and test our expectations using data drawn from Twitter following Hurricane Sandy.MethodWe use a novel linguistic approach to measure blame attributions in text and compare patterns of blame attributions toward multiple levels of government over time.ResultsSocial media blame attributions emerge at the outset of the storm and are more likely to center on federal actors, followed by local actors. State actors received the least blame. We find similar patterns in retweets.ConclusionOur results suggest that social media privileges attributions that target broadly salient national political actors; however, social media accounts of disaster may make it easier for the public to assess performance of local and state government.

AbstractA public agency's capacity to implement policy and achieve valued public outcomes has been a long‐running area of research in public administration. Many articles provide theory and empirics regarding the capacity to implement policy, but relatively few examine multiple types of agency capacity within the same analysis. This article develops a model based on the election administration literature in political science and public administration to examine the effects of managerial capacity, financial capacity, and technology on the election management outcome of the residual vote rate in North Carolina election jurisdictions. The results indicate that higher levels of management capacity and technology significantly reduce problems with voting as measured by the residual vote rate. Financial capacity shows a negative association with the residual vote rate but is not significant. The article concludes by discussing how studying election administration provides an important and uniquely good administrative context for developing administrative theory.

AbstractThe level of spending for public services is known to be influenced by spending on other services. This interdependency is known in the literature in public budgeting and finance as budgetary tradeoffs. While it is well known that spending in one area affects spending in other areas, the factors that influence budgetary tradeoff decisions are not well understood, and specifically how intertemporal evaluation of funding influences budgetary tradeoffs is not currently addressed in the public budgeting and finance literature. Building on Jacob's theory of intertemporal policy choice, we develop a tradeoff model to test the key predictions of intertemporal policy choice theory. Using data from counties in North Carolina, we find that partisanship and time horizon generally influence budgetary tradeoffs in ways that are consistent with intertemporal policy choice. This research informs the budgetary tradeoff choices that are made at the local level, and it specifically informs the unique case of election administration spending. Our findings lend theoretical support to assertions that election administration is underfunded in the United States because the budgetary tradeoff models suggest that election administration suffers from not having a natural constituency to advocate for it in county governments and because the outcomes from funding or underfunding are only observed intermittently.

AbstractRecently, election administration has been an important part of the national and global conversation about the results of elections. The important issue of election administration spending has not been examined extensively, and the influence of politics on election administration spending levels has not been examined in the United States. While theories of voter turnout and policy preference suggest that politics should influence election administration spending levels in the counties that administer elections, to our knowledge, there has been no evidence produced to support a partisan election administration expenditure effect. This research finds that Republican county commissions in North Carolina spend significantly less on election administration once the county electorate is a sufficient Republican majority. The article presents a novel model and method for estimating election administration spending and calls for additional research to examine the outcomes of these significant differences in spending on election administration.

Recent research indicates the need to understand the role financial resources play in election administration. A key question is, when considering "financial resources," how much does economic hardship affect the differences between the budgeted amount and the actual amount spent?. The limited research that has examined this question comes from the United Kingdom; it shows that there are significant differences between the two measures and they vary systematically based upon fiscal environmental conditions. This research examines whether the fiscal environment influences election administration budgets, spending, and the resulting budget variance in local US jurisdictions. Using county election administration spending data from four states, this research indicates election administration budgets, spending, and variances are related to the fiscal environment. Not only does this work have implications for measurement of election cost, but this work is key to understanding the financial situation election administration faces given pandemic-related economic woes.