A majority of the states have created, by statute, some type of external body (such as a board or commissions) to oversee their departments of transportation (DOTs). The focus of this research is on two types of commissions: highway-only commissions and multimodal transportation commissions. We review the authorizing statutes that establish these boards and commissions to identify their statutorily defined membership characteristics and roles. We then empirically estimate the possible contribution of commissions'statutory characteristics to a measure of DOT capital and infrastructure management capacity taken from the Government Performance Project. The findings suggest that commissions are designed to promote the general interest in the efficient allocation of transportation resources. They also suggest that large commissions may improve management capacity by fostering more open discussion. There were no significant differences between highway-only and multimodal transportation commissions.
Axelrod, D. (1992). Shadow government: The hidden world of public authorities and how they control over $1 trillion of your money. New York: John Wiley.
2.
Barret, K., Greene, R., & Mariani, M. (2001). Grading the states. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from www.governing.com/gpp/2001/gp1intro.htm
3.
Behn R. ( 1998). The new public management and the search for democratic accountability. International Public Management Journal, 1(2), 131-164.
4.
Bourdeaux, C. (2007). Reexamining the claim of public authority efficacy . Administration & Society,39(1), 77-106.
5.
Ebdon, C. (2001). Capital planning in the states: Internal decision-making . Retrieved March 17, 2006, from www.maxwell.syr.edu/gpp/pdfs/CM_State_Learning_Paper.pdf.
6.
Ebdon, C. (2003). Capital management. In Paths to performance in state and local government: Final report from theMaxwell School. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute.
7.
Frant, H. (1997). Reconsidering the determinants of public authority use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 7(4), 571-590.
8.
Gormley, W.T. (1983). The politics of public utility regulation. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
9.
Government Performance Project. (2002). Paths to performance in state and local government. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from www.maxwell.syr.edu/gpp/grade/2002full.pdf
10.
Henriques, D. (1986). The machinery of greed: Public authority abuse and what to do about it. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
11.
Henry, G.T., & Harms, S.W. (1987). Board involvement in policy making and administration . Public Administration Review, 47, 153-159.
12.
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2003). Implementing public policy: Governance in theory and in practice. London: Sage.
13.
Hult, K.M., & Walcott, C. (1990). Governing public organizations: Politics, structures and institutional design. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole .
14.
Ingraham. P.W., Joyce, P.G., & Donahue, A.D. (2003). Government performance: Why management matters . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
Ingraham, P.W., & Moynihan, D.P. (2001). Beyond measurement: Managing for results in state government. In D. Forsythe (Ed.), Quicker, better, cheaper? Managing performance in American government (pp. 311-335). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
16.
Ingraham, P.W., & Donahue, A.K. (2000). Dissecting the black box revisited: Characterizing government management capacity. In C. J. Heinrich & L. E. Lynn Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 292-318). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
17.
Kearns, K.P. (1996). Managing for accountability: Preserving the public trust in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
18.
Lockwood, S. (1998). The changing stateDOT. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
19.
Lockwood, S. (2000). Factors affecting the future of state DOTs as institutions. (NCHRP 8-36). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
20.
Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in government boards and commissions . Public Administration Review, 57(2), 160-167.
21.
O'Connell, L. (2005). Program accountability as an emergent property: The role of stakeholders in a program's field. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 85-93.
22.
Poister, T.H., & Van Slyke, D.M. (2002). Strategic management innovation in state transportation departments. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(1), 58-74.
23.
Quirk, P.J. (1981). Industry influence in federal regulatory agencies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
Schaller, L.E. (1964). Is the citizen advisory committee a threat to representative government?Public Administration Review, 24(3), 175-179.
25.
Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R., & Ragan, J.W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 51-71.
26.
Wellborn, D.M. (1977). Governance of federal regulatory agencies. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
