Merit or Marionettes? An Analysis of Decision-Making and the Political Control of Federal Project Grant Awards

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Jordan T. Long, Benjamin M. Brunjes
{"title":"Merit or Marionettes? An Analysis of Decision-Making and the Political Control of Federal Project Grant Awards","authors":"Jordan T. Long, Benjamin M. Brunjes","doi":"10.22259/2642-8318.0501005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Project grants, which are designated to fund a particular program or initiative, are supposed to be awarded based on the technical merit of the grant application. However, public administrators are commonly influenced by political priorities. We ask whether administrators prioritize merit or political objectives when awarding project grants. We identify three decision-making processes used to award project grants: political, administrative, and exported. Then, using data from eight U.S. federal grant programs from 2008 – 2015, we analyze whether grants using each of these decision-making processes show signs of political influence. We find evidence that grants using either political or administrative forms of decision-making are susceptible to legislative priorities. Grants awarded by third-party experts show no evidence of political influence. We conclude that political factors are important for the allocation of project grants, offering insights into the interdependent relationship between legislators and administrators. Keywords: Decision-Making, Politics, Grants, Contracts, Pork Barrel Politics, Federalism, Political Control, Bureaucratic Politics, Public Administration.","PeriodicalId":43945,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22259/2642-8318.0501005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Project grants, which are designated to fund a particular program or initiative, are supposed to be awarded based on the technical merit of the grant application. However, public administrators are commonly influenced by political priorities. We ask whether administrators prioritize merit or political objectives when awarding project grants. We identify three decision-making processes used to award project grants: political, administrative, and exported. Then, using data from eight U.S. federal grant programs from 2008 – 2015, we analyze whether grants using each of these decision-making processes show signs of political influence. We find evidence that grants using either political or administrative forms of decision-making are susceptible to legislative priorities. Grants awarded by third-party experts show no evidence of political influence. We conclude that political factors are important for the allocation of project grants, offering insights into the interdependent relationship between legislators and administrators. Keywords: Decision-Making, Politics, Grants, Contracts, Pork Barrel Politics, Federalism, Political Control, Bureaucratic Politics, Public Administration.
功绩还是木偶?联邦项目拨款的决策与政治控制分析
项目拨款是指定用于资助一个特定的计划或计划的,应该是基于拨款申请的技术价值来授予的。然而,公共行政人员通常受到政治优先事项的影响。我们询问管理者在授予项目资助时是否优先考虑绩效或政治目标。我们确定了用于授予项目赠款的三种决策过程:政治、行政和出口。然后,使用2008年至2015年八个美国联邦拨款项目的数据,我们分析了使用这些决策过程的拨款是否显示出政治影响的迹象。我们发现有证据表明,使用政治或行政决策形式的赠款容易受到立法优先事项的影响。第三方专家颁发的赠款没有显示出政治影响的证据。我们得出的结论是,政治因素对项目拨款的分配很重要,这为立法者和管理者之间的相互依存关系提供了见解。关键词:决策,政治,拨款,合同,猪肉桶政治,联邦制,政治控制,官僚政治,公共行政。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
20.70%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信