What are the implications of increasing a public agency's ability to generate its own revenue for political control of the bureaucracy? This article uses historical cases of public land user fees to argue that, under certain conditions, such a change, rather than increasing agency autonomy, actually facilitates congressional intervention and control. Specifically, if the revenue increase carries no guarantees of increased appropriations and maintained levels of discretion, then old funds are supplanted by new funds with new strings attached. I illustrate the argument by examining the impacts of increased entrance fees on the National Park Service in recent years.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baden, John.1977. "A Primer for the Management of Common Pool Resources ." In Garrett Hardin and Baden. eds., Managing the Commons. pp. 137-46. San Francisco: Freeman.
Culhane, Paul J.1981. Public Lands Politics. Baltimore, MD : John Hopkins University Press.
6.
Davis, Joseph A.1987. "House Interior Votes to Allow Fee Increases at National Parks." Congressional Quarterly Almanac1987 . Washington, DC: CQ Press.
7.
Ferejohn, John A., and Charles R. Shipan .1989. "Congressional Influence on Administrative Agencies: A Case Study of Telecommunications Policy." In Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I Oppenhiemer, eds., Congressional Reconsidered, 4th ed., pp. 303-410. Washington DC: CQ Press.
8.
Fiorina, Morris.1982. "Legislative Choice of Regulatory Forms." Public Choice39: 33-66.
9.
Foss, Phillip O.1960. Politics and Grass. Seattle : University of Washington Press. Freemuth, John.1989. "The National Parks: Political Versus Professional Determinants of Policy." Public Administartion Review49 (3): 278-86.
10.
Gates, Paul W.1968. History of Public Land Law Development. Washington, DC: Public Land Law Review Commision.
11.
Halperin, Morton H.1974. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution .
12.
Hartzog, George B., Jr.1988. Battling for the National Parks. Mt. Kisco, NY: Moyer Bell Limited.
13.
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Mathew D. McCubbins.1991. The Logic of Delegation . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Libecap, Gary D.1981a. "Bureaucratic Opposition to the Assignment of Property Rights: Overgrazing on the Western Range." Journal of Economic History41 (1): 151-58.
15.
_. 1981b. Locking up the Range. Cambridge, MA : Ballinger.
16.
Lutrin, Carl E., and Allen K. Settle .1992. American Public Administration . St. Paul, MN: West.
17.
Mayhew, David.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
Moe, Terry M.1985. "The Politicized Presidency." In John E. Chubb and Paul E. Peterson, eds., The New Direction in American Politics, pp. 235-71. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
19.
_. 1987. "An Assessment of the Positive Theory of 'Congressional Dominance'."Legislative Studies Quarterly12 (4): 475-520.
20.
Molotsky, Irvin.1987. "A Pay-As-You-Go Plan at National Parks." New York Times, March 29, p. 3.
21.
Niskanen, William.1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
22.
Peffer, E. Louise.1951. The Closing of the Public Domain. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
Peterson, Cass.1987. "Dozens of Parks, Tourists No Longer Roam Free of Charge ." Washington Post, February 18, p. A17.
24.
Pfiffner, James P.1990. "Presidential Control of the Bureaucracy." In Frederick S. Lane, ed., Current Issues in Public Administration, pp. 84-105. New York: St. Martin's Press.
25.
Public Land Review Commission.1969. User Fees and Changes for Public Lands and Resources. Washington, DC: Public Land Review Commission.
26.
Ripley, Randall B., and Grace A. Franklin .1976. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
27.
Rowley, William D.1985. U.S. Forest Service Grazing and Rangelands. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.
28.
Savage, James D.1991. "Saints and Cardinals in Appropriations Committees and the fight Against Distributive Politics." Legislative Studies Quarterly16 (3): 329-47.
29.
U.S. Congress, Conference Report an Appropriations.1986. 99th C., 2nd sess. Making Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies. Washington, DC: GPO.
30.
U.S. Congress, House.1940. Congressional Record. Washington, DC: GPO.
31.
U.S. Congress, House.1946a. Congressional Record. Washington, DC: GPO.
32.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations.1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. Washington, DC: GPO.
33.
U.S. Congress, Senate.1946b. Congressional Record. Washington, DC: GPO.
34.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearings.1982. Proposed Fiscal Year 1983 Budget Request. 97th Congress, 2nd sessWashington, DC: GPO.
35.
U.S. Congress, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands.1986. Entrance Fees and Resource Protection for Units of the National Park System. 99th Congress, 2nd sessWashington DC: GPO.
36.
U.S. Congress, SenateSubcommittee on Public Lands. 1987. National Park Service Entrance Fees. 100th Congress, 1st sess. Washington, DC: GPO.
37.
U.S. Department of the Interior.1990. Budget Justifications FY 1991. Washington, DC: GPO.
38.
U.S. General Accounting Office.1982. Increasing Entrance Fees - National Park Service. Washington, DC: GAO.
39.
U.S. National Park Service.1989. Index. Washington, DC: GPO.
40.
U.S. National Park Service.1992. National Parks for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: GPO.
41.
Voight, William, Jr. , 1976. Public Grazing Lands. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
42.
Wandollek, Julia M.1988. Public Lands Conflict and Resolution. New York: Plenum Press.
43.
Weingast, Barry R., and Mark J. Moran.1982. "The Myth of Runaway Bureaucracy." Regulation5/1982: 33-38.
44.
Wildavsky, Aaron.1984. The Politics of the Budgetary Process, 4th ed. Boston, MA: Little Brown .
45.
Wilson, James Q.1989. Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.
46.
Wood, B. Dan, and Richard W. Waterman .1991. "The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy." American Political Science Review85 (3): 801-28.
