The question of the effect of administrative arrangements on program administration and program outcomes is a central question for those interested in policy implementation. In the implementation of federal programs, the specific state-level administrative arrangements can have a significant impact not only on resource distribution patterns, but also on the ability of involved agencies to secure adequate state resources for the program. This paper addresses this question through the lens of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund program designed to fund water quality infrastructure. Employing a dataset covering nearly thirty years of state-level data, we find that measures of administrative structure and state capability are more powerful explanators of state resource decisions than are more standard explanations of politics, needs, and ideology.
ArbuckleJ. G.Jr. (2013). Clean Water State Revolving Fund loans and landowner investments in agricultural best management practices in Iowa. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 49(1), 67–75.
2.
BanfieldE. C.WilsonJ. (1963). City politics. Harvard University Press.
3.
BattistaJ.RichmanJ. (2011). Party pressure in the U.S. state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(3), 397–422.
4.
BerryW.FordingR.RingquistE.HansonR.KlarnerC. (2010). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the U.S. states: A re-appraisal. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 10(2), 117–135.
5.
BerryW.FordingR.RingquistE.HansonR.KlarnerC. (2013). A new measure of state government ideology, and new evidence that both the new measure and an old measure are valid. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 13(2), 164–182.
6.
BerryW.RingquistE.FordingR.HansonR. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 327–348.
7.
BowenD.GreeneZ. (2014). Should we measure professionalism with an index? A note on theory and practice in state legislative professionalism research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14(3), 277–296.
8.
BowmanA. (2017). The state/local government(s) conundrum: Power and design. Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1119–1129.
BowmanA.KearneyR. (2011). Second-order devolution: Data and doubt. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(4), 563–585.
11.
BunchB. (2008). Clean Water State Revolving Fund program: Analysis of variations in state practices. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(2), 117–136.
12.
ChoateP.WalterS. (1981). America in ruins: The decaying infrastructure. Duke University Press.
13.
ConlanT. (1988). New federalism: Intergovernmental reform from Nixon to Reagan. Brookings Institution.
14.
CoxG.KousserT.McCubbinsM. (2010). Party power or preferences? Quasi-experimental evidence from American state legislatures. Journal of Politics, 72(3), 799–811.
15.
DilgerR. J. (1986). Grantsmanship, formulamanship, and other allocational principles: Wastewater treatment grants. In DilgerR. (Ed.), American intergovernmental relations today: Perspectives and controversies (pp. 248–267). Prentice Hall.
16.
ElazarD. (1984). American federalism: A view from the states(3rd ed.). Harper & Row.
17.
GogginM.BowmanA.LesterJ.O’TooleL. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Scott, Foresman/Little Brown.
18.
HeilmanJ.JohnsonG. (1991). State revolving loan funds: Analysis of institutional arrangements and distributive consequences [Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior]. Auburn University.
19.
HolcombeR. (1992). Revolving fund finance: The case of wastewater treatment. Public Budgeting & Finance, 12(Fall), 50–65.
20.
HoornbeekJ. (2005). The promises and pitfalls of devolution: Water pollution policies in the American states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 35(1), 87–114.
21.
KeiserL. (1999). State bureaucratic discretion and the administration of social welfare programs: The case of social security disability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 87–106.
22.
KlyzaC.SousaD. (2008). American environmental policy, 1990-2006. MIT Press.
23.
KraftM.StephanM.AbelT. (2011). Coming clean: Information disclosure and environmental performance. MIT Press.
24.
LasswellH. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, and how. McGraw Hill.
25.
LesterJ. (1994). A new federalism? Environmental policy in the states. In VigN.KraftM. (Eds.) Environmental policy in the 1990s (2nd ed., pp. 51–68). Congressional Quarterly Press.
26.
LiangJ. (2016). The shadow of the politics of deservedness? The implications of group-centric policy context for environmental policy implementation inequalities in the United States. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 552–570.
27.
MatisoffD. (2008). The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards: Regional diffusion or internal determinants?Review of Policy Research, 25(6), 527–546.
28.
MorrisJ. (1994). Privatization and environmental policy: An examination of the distributional consequences of private sector activity in State Revolving Funds [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Auburn University.
29.
MorrisJ. (1997). The distributional impacts of privatization in national water quality policy. Journal of Politics, 59(1), 56–72.
30.
MorrisJ. (1999a). State implementation of national water quality policy: Policy theory, policy streams and (un)intended consequences in water quality. Public Works Management & Policy, 3(2), 317–330.
31.
MorrisJ. (1999b). Was Reagan federalism good for business? Privatization and state administrative capacity in the clean water state revolving fund program. Southeastern Political Review, 27(2), 323–339.
32.
MorrisJ. (2022, forthcoming). Clean water policy and state choice: Promise and performance in the Water Quality Act. Cambridge University Press.
33.
MorrisJ.MayerM.KenterR.LuceroL. (2019). State politics and the Affordable Care Act: Choices and decision. Routledge.
34.
MorrisJ.WilliamsonR.NguyenL.HumeJ. (2021). Promise and performance: The Water Quality Act at thirty [Paper Prepared]. 2021 Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, January 7, 2021 (virtual conference).
35.
MullinM.DaleyD. (2018). Multilevel instruments for infrastructure investment: Evaluating State Revolving Funds for water. Policy Studies Journal, 46(3), 629–650.
36.
O’TooleL.Jr. (1996). Hollowing the infrastructure: Revolving loan programs and network dynamics in the American states. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 225–242.
37.
OwingsS.BorckR. (2000). Legislative professionalism and government spending: Do citizen legislators really spend less?Public Finance Review, 28(3), 210–225.
38.
PressmanJ.WildavskyA. (1973). Implementation. University of California Press.
39.
RabeB. (2004). Statehouse & greenhouse: The emerging politics of American climate change policy. Brookings Institution Press.
40.
RabeB. (2006). Second generation climate policies in the American states: Proliferation, diffusion and regionalization. The Brookings Institution.
41.
RingquistE. (1993). Environmental protection at the state level: Politics and progress in controlling pollution. M.E. Sharpe.
42.
ScheberleD. (2004). Federalism and environmental policy: Trust and the politics of implementation, revised and updated. Georgetown University Press.
43.
SossJ.SchramS.VartanianT.O’BrienE. (2001). Setting the terms of relief: Explaining state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 378–395.
44.
SquireP. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The Squire index revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(2), 211–227.
45.
SquireP. (2017). A Squire index update. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 17(4), 361–371.
46.
StephensG. (1974). State centralization and the erosion of local autonomy. Journal of Politics, 36(1), 44–76.
47.
StephensG.WikstromN. (2000). Metropolitan government and governance. Oxford University Press.
48.
TeodoroM. (2014). When professionals lead: Executive management, normative isomorphism, and policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(4), 983–1004.
49.
TravisR.MorrisE.MorrisJ. (2004). State implementation of federal environmental policy: Explaining leveraging in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Policy Studies Journal, 32(3), 441–460.
50.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Clean watersheds needs survey 2012: Report to congress.
WhitfordA. (2014). Information and uncertainty in policy implementation: Evidence from the implementation of EPA waivers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 267–288.
54.
WoodsN.PotoskiM. (2010). Environmental federalism revisited: Second-order devolution in air quality regulation. Review of Policy Research, 27(6), 721–739.
