Give a Little or Lose a Lot? The Effects of Increased Transparency on Local Applications for Federal Grant Funds

Abstract

In this article, I examine the effects of the increased transparency and reporting requirements on the decisions of local education agencies (LEAs) to draw down federal dollars allocated to state programs in nonmission areas. Data from LEAs and program expenditures are used to develop a model detailing how transparency impacts the decisions of LEAs in two states in drawing down funds from a federal grant program. Findings suggest that rather than the theoretical expectation that managers act in an anticipatory manner, managers are more concerned with immediate financial needs.

Keywords

transparency local governments budgets education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-115.

Arnold

R. D.

(1990). The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Arrow

K. J.

(1962). Economic welfare and allocation of resources for invention. In Nelson

(Ed.), The rate of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (609-626). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Atkinson

Van den Noord

(2001). Managing public expenditures: Some emerging policy issues and framework for analysis (OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 285). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2094463 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2094463

Bartels

L. M.

(1991). Instrumental and ‘quasi-instrumental’ variables. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 777-800.

Bendor

Moe

(1985). An adaptive model of bureaucratic politics. American Political Science Review, 79, 755-774.

Boyne

G. A.

Walker

R. M.

(2004). Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 231-252.

Camerer

Hogarth

(1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7-42.

Center for Digital Education. (2009). Online learning policy survey: A survey of the states. Retrieved from https://scvspconnect.ed.sc.gov/sites/default/files/CDE%20Report.pdf

10.

Cooper

T. L.

(2004). Big questions in administrative ethics: A need for focused, collaborative effort. Public Administration Review, 64, 395-407.

11.

Dahl

(2006). A preface to democratic theory (50th Anniversary Edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

12.

Davis

P. E.

Hamilton

Heath

Mackie

Narai

(1999). Financial market data for international financial stability. London: Centre for Central Banking Studies, Bank of England.

13.

Demertzis

Hoeberichts

. (2005). The costs of increasing transparency (De Nederlandsche Bank Working Paper No. 80). Retrieved from http://www.dnb.nl/binaries/Working%20Paper%2080_tcm46-146737.pdf

14.

Dixon

Kouzmin

Korac-Kakabadse

(1998). Managerialism: Something old, something new, something borrowed, little new: Economic prescription versus effective organizational change in public agencies. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11, 1-19.

15.

Downes

Pogue

(1994). Accounting for fiscal accountability and need in the design of aid formulas. In Anderson

J. E.

(Ed.), Fiscal equalization for state and local government finance (pp. 89-110). Westport, CT: Praeger.

16.

Duncombe

Yinger

(1998). School finance reform: Aid formulas and equity objectives. National Tax Journal, 51, 239-262.

17.

Dunifon

Kowalski-Jones

(2003). The influences of participation in the national school lunch program and food insecurity on child well-being. Social Service Review, 77, 72-91.

18.

Ellerson

(2009). Schools and stimulus: How America’s public schools are using ARRA funds. American Association of School Administrators. Retrieved from http://aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/AASAStimulusSurveyAug09.pdf

19.

Fisher

Papke

(2000). Local government responses to education grants. National Tax Journal, 53, 153-168.

20.

Fox

(2005). Evidence of evidence-based health policy: The politics of systematic reviews in coverage decisions. Health Affairs, 24, 113-122.

21.

Fung

Graham

Weil

(2002). The political economy of transparency: What makes disclosure policies sustainable? (Institute for Government Innovation, Occasional Paper RWP03-039). Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=384922 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.384922

22.

Fung

Graham

Weil

(2008). Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Greene

W. H.

(2006). Econometric analysis. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

24.

Hanushek

(2005). The economic value of improving public schools. In Proceedings of Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Research Conference, November 18-19, 2004 (pp. 59-72). Cleveland, OH: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

25.

Hanushek

Raymond

M. E.

(2004). Shopping for evidence against school accountability. In Fowler

W. J.

Jr. (Ed.), Developments in school finance (pp. 117-130). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

26.

Hanushek

Raymond

M. E.

(2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297-327.

27.

Hanushek

Raymond

M. E.

(2006). School accountability and student performance. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Regional Economic Development, 2, 51-61.

28.

Lipsky

(1981). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

29.

Madison

(1822). Securing the republic: A letter to W. T. Barry. In The founders’ constitution (Vol. 1, Chapter 18, Document 35). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

30.

Mayhew

D. R.

(1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

31.

McCubbins

Noll

R. G.

Weingast

B. R.

(1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 3, 243-277.

32.

Morris

Shin

H. S.

(2002). The social value of public information. American Economic Review, 92, 1521-1534.

33.

New York State Department of Education. (2002). Analysis of local effort in New York State school districts. Retrieved from http://www.oms.nysed.gov/faru/Articles/LocalEffort_99-2000.htm

34.

Nicholson-Crotty

O’Toole

2004. Testing a model of public management and organizational performance: The case of law enforcement agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 1-18.

35.

O’Leary

(2005). The ethics of dissent: Managing guerrilla government. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

36.

Otley

D. T.

(1978). Budget use and managerial performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 16, 122-149.

37.

Peterson

Hess

(2005). Johnny can read . . . in some states. Education Next, 5, 50-53.

38.

Peterson

Hess

(2006). Keeping an eye on state standards. Education Next, 6, 28-29.

39.

Peterson

Hess

(2008). Few states set world class standards. Education Next, 8, 70-73.

40.

Piotrowski

S. J.

(2007). Governmental transparency in the path of administrative reform. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

41.

Piotrowski

S. J.

(2010). An argument for fully incorporating nonmission-based values into public administration. In O’Leary

Van Slyke

Kim

(Eds.), The future of public administration around the world: The Minnowbrook perspective (pp. 27-32). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

42.

Piotrowski

S. J.

Borry

E. L.

(2009). Governmental transparency and websites: The case of New Jersey municipalities. In Reddick

C. G.

(Ed.), Strategies for local e-government adoption and implementation: Comparative studies (pp. 1-23). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

43.

Piotrowski

S. J.

Borry

E. L.

(2010). An analytic framework for open meetings and transparency. Public Administration & Management, 15, 138-176.

44.

Piotrowski

S. J.

Rosenbloom

D. H.

(2002). Nonmission-based values in results oriented public management: The case of freedom of information. Public Administration Review, 62, 643-657.

45.

Piotrowski

S. J.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 306-323.

46.

Rogoff

Sibert

(1988). Elections and macroeconomic policy cycles. Review of Economic Studies, 55, 1-16.

47.

Snyder

J. M.

Ansolabehere

Rodden

(2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102, 215-232.

48.

State Educational Technology Directors Association. (2010). ARRA investments in technology, innovation and k12 reform: The digital education funding cliff. Retrieved from http://www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=299&name=DLFE-818.pdf

49.

Trounstine

(2009). All politics is local: The reemergence of the study of city politics. Perspectives on Politics, 7, 611-618.

50.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). National educational technology trends study. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/netts-vol1-exec-sum.html

51.

Van de Walle

Roberts

(2008). Publishing performance information: An illusion of control? In Van Doreen

Van de Walle

(Eds.), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used (pp. 211-226). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.

52.

Weber

(1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. New York, NY: Bedminster Press.

53.

Wechsler

Backoff

R. W.

(1986). Policy making and administration in state agencies: Strategic management approaches. Public Administration Review, 46, 321-327.

54.

Wilenksy

H. L.

(1974). The welfare state and equality, Structural and ideological roots of expenditures. Berkeley: University of California Press.