This article examines the nature and extent of private-sector involvement in the design, implementation, and administration of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, an environmental infrastructure financing program. Using data from two 50-state surveys of state SRF coordinators and from case-study interviews with key SRF personnel, the article concludes that (a) the particular state context helps determine the degree to which states must rely on nonpublic sources of expertise in the SRF program, (b) involvement of private-sector actors in the management of public programs serves to further muddle the boundary between the two sectors, (c) the involvement of private-sector personnel in the SRF program raises questions of accountability in the allocation of scarce public resources, and (d) a conceptual framework emphasizing institutional rules offers useful insight into the ways states address the need for expertise in their SRF institutional arrangements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArgyrisC. (1973a). Organization man: Rational and self-actualizing. Public Administration Review,33, 354–357.
2.
ArgyrisC. (1973b). Some limits of rational man organizational theory. Public Administration Review,33, 253–267.
3.
BuchananJ. M.TullockG. (1965). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
DonahueJ. P. (1989). The privatization decision: Public ends, private means. New York: Basic Books.
5.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
6.
General Accounting Office. (1992). Water pollution: State Revolving Funds insufficient to meet wastewater treatment needs (Report to the Chairman, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, House of Representatives, GAO/RCED-92-35). Washington, DC: Author.
7.
GolembiewskiR. T. (1977). Public administration as a developing discipline, part 1: Perspectives on past and present. New York: Marcel Dekker.
8.
HeilmanJ. G.JohnsonG. W. (1990, November). Testing a strategy for shifting the burden of infrastructure finance from the federal level to the state and local level: An institutional analysis of State Revolving Loan Funds. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, Ga.
9.
HeilmanJ. G.JohnsonG. W. (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, Al: Auburn University Press.
10.
HeilmanJ. G.JohnsonG. W. (1992). The politics and economics of privatization: The case of wastewater treatment. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
11.
KettlD. F. (1988). Government by proxy: (Mis?)managing federal programs. Washington, Dc: Congressional Quarterly Press.
12.
KuttnerR. (1989). The perils of privatization. Privatization Review,4, 15–27.
13.
MoeR. C. (1987). Exploring the limits of privatization. Public Administration Review,47, 453–460.
14.
MorrisJ. C. (1994). Privatization and environmental policy: An examination of the distributive consequences of private sector activity in State Revolving Funds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama.
15.
MorrisJ. C.BurchG. C. (1991, October). Exploring environmental policy implementation and management: The case of State Revolving Funds. Paper presented at the 1991 Secopa Conference, Charlotte, Nc.
16.
NorthD. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
18.
OstromE. (1986a). An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice,48, 3–25.
19.
OstromE. (1986b). A method of institutional analysis. In KaufmannF. X.MajoneG.OstromV.WirthV. (Eds.), Guidance, control, and evaluation in the public sector. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
20.
OstromE. (1990a). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
OstromE. (1990b, February). Public choice, institutional analysis, and water resources. Paper presented at the Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson.
22.
OstromV. (1989). The intellectual crisis in American public administration (2nd ed.). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
23.
RaelinJ. A. (1982). A policy output model of interorganizational relations. Organizational Studies,3, 243–267.
24.
SavasE. S. (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, Nj: Chatham House.
25.
SavasE. S. (1989). A taxonomy of privatization strategies. Policy Studies Journal,18, 343–355.
26.
SilvertK. H. (1970). Man's power: A biased guide to political thought and action. New York: Viking.
27.
SundquistJ. L. (1984). Privatization: No panacea for what ails government. In BrooksH.LiebmanL.SchellingC. (Eds.), Public-private partnership: New opportunities for meeting social needs. Cambridge, Ma: Ballinger.
28.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Municipal Pollution Control. (1989), SRF rule: EPA State Revolving Fund regulations, 40 CFR Part 35. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
WeaverR. K.RockmanB. A. (1993). Assessing the effects of institutions. In WeaverR. K.RockmanB. A. (Eds.), Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and abroad. Washington, Dc: Brookings Institution.
30.
WiseC. (1990). Public service configurations and public organizations: Public organization design in the post-privatization era. Public Administration Review,50, 141–155.
