Change and Continuity in the Study of State and Local Governance

Abstract

The operation and study of state and local government and politics has gone through a significant transformation in the last several decades. For this issue of Reviews and Essays, the author sat down with leading scholar, Ann O’M. Bowman, to discuss the past, present, and future of state, local, and intergovernmental research. While this essay is not meant to be an exhaustive examination of the “state” of the state and local literature, it does explore various interesting lines of inquiry that deserve continued scholarly attention and discusses the potential for research to inform practice.

Keywords

federalism governance local politics state politics

Introduction

This article explores change and continuity in the study of state and local government and politics. To do so, Dr. Ann O’M. Bowman graciously offered her insights into where the literature has been and where it is going in the important areas of state and local government and intergovernmental relations. She holds the Hazel Davis and Robert Kennedy Endowed Chair in government and public service at the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University. During her illustrious career, she has conducted research in the areas of state and urban politics and administration, intergovernmental relations, and public policy. She has published articles in various scholarly journals including State and Local Government Review, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Public Administration Review, American Politics Quarterly, Political Research Quarterly, and Social Science Quarterly. Her books, The Resurgence of the States and State and Local Government, both with Richard C. Kearney, have been staples of state and local government courses for decades and the tenth edition of the latter is forthcoming. She is currently working on projects related to the topics of local government authority, interstate compacts, and the multigovernmental regulation of energy, water, and food policy. She is a member of the editorial board of State and Local Government Review, the advisory council of Publius: The Journal of Federalism, the executive council of the Section on Intergovernmental Administration and Management of American Society for Public Administration, and the advisory committee for the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research’s summer program. In 2015, she served as the president of the Southern Political Science Association.

In an interview, she commented on changes in governance and policy at the state and local levels, as well as other topics including promising new avenues of research in the state, local, and intergovernmental fields and the potential for research to inform practice. In this essay, her insights are discussed and used to explore how changes in actual politics and policy have been reflected and explored in the literature.

The State of State and Local Government Literature

Dr. Bowman (2015) was initially drawn to the study of state and local governance and policy because of her experience as a practitioner in the Florida legislature. Specifically, she served as a policy analyst and researcher for three years working on policy formulation and adoption in education and elections. Later, she went on to work in county government for a year, where she saw first-hand the difficulty in enacting policy that was drafted without full consideration for implementation. This period of time serving the state and county governments “piqued and ultimately developed” her interest in the formal study of state and local government and politics. When she decided to pursue her PhD, her interest in the state and local field was further supported by her professors at the University of Florida.

Early in her career, there was a prevailing concern in the field that too few scholars were pursuing lines of inquiry into state and local government processes. Notably, Malcolm Jewell (1982) published an article titled “The Neglected World of State Politics.” In his work, Jewell argued that “state government is growing in importance, and political institutions and practices are changing in the states, but there is too little evidence that political scientists are aware of either development” (p. 639). Jewell’s concerns echoed previous calls to devote more resources to the study of local government (Herson 1957). Brace and Jewett (1995, 644) also made a similar argument when they stated “that the study of American politics has a vexing blind spot. Consciously or unconsciously, too many studies of American politics ignore the important role that the states play in shaping political behavior and outcomes in the United States.” While Bowman concedes that this may have once been the case, she believes there has been much improvement in both the interest in and the scholarship devoted to state and local government issues.

Bowman states that for “scholars and students alike, interest in state and local government seems to be much greater than it was in the past” and in her opinion the “field is thriving.” She also notes a trend where scholars who have studied federal and national level institutions, like the Presidency and Congress, are now turning their attention to state and local institutions. One benefit of doing so is that there is “so much explanatory power when your N is 50 rather than when your N is 1. The comparative dimension provides an opportunity to understand how elected officials and governmental institutions…function and operate.” Additionally, states and localities offer opportunities for researchers to conduct natural experiments, an increasingly popular research method.

Changes in State and Local Governance

One way to examine change in the state, local, and intergovernmental literatures is to first address changes that occurred in actual governance and policy. Arguably, the landscape of state and local government has changed considerably since the onset of the devolution revolution in the 1980s. Bowman notes that two important developments that have occurred in the operation of state and local politics, since she coauthored The Resurgence of the States (1986), are a movement toward greater governmental transparency and evidence-based decision making. She explains that there has been a “sincere and concerted effort on the part of state and local officials to make information useful…and available to the public.” In other words, governments have attempted to increase transparency through the provision of information in more accessible formats. In the last two decades, this trend can be seen in the adoption of e-government tools at the state and local level. Research indicates that there has been a pronounced increase in the number of state and local governments implementing e-government, as well as an increase in the number of Americans accessing government through Internet technology (Tolbert, Mossberger, and McNeal 2008).

The literature has responded to the implementation of transparency efforts by examining the decision to innovate in the area of e-government and the impact of these efforts (Porumbescu 2015). Early research (McNeal et al. 2003) found that legislative professionalism increased a state’s likelihood of implementing e-government policies, while factors such as population size and density, educational attainment of the population, fiscal capacity, and form of government influenced city and county adoption (Bernick et al. 2014; Jun and Weare 2011; Lowatcharin and Menifield 2015). Research has also examined the impact that e-government efforts have had on the public’s perception of government. For example, Tolbert and Mossberger (2006) find that the implementation of e-governance techniques increases process-based trust of government among citizens, but not the more transparency-based, institutional trust.

Another important recent finding addresses the relationship between transparency and participation. One of the arguments for greater transparency, through e-governance, is that it will increase opportunities for political participation among the public. While opportunities may be created through its implementation, research suggests that transparency does not necessarily lead to an increase in the overall level of participative local government (Welch 2012). As Bowman states, there is…

…limited participation of the public in so many ways…whether we’re talking voter turnout or going to public hearings or responding to questions posted on a city website…It is one of the ironies that the barriers to participation are relatively low in most instances, but there is still limited participation.

According to Bowman, a second important shift in state and local governance over the last several decades is a movement toward “evidence-based decision-making.” While this doesn’t mean “the decisions are great or the ones we would necessarily endorse,” she argues that there has been a “push to professionalizing, modernizing” governance. This shift has been guided by legislative efforts that encourage and/or require agencies to incorporate evidence-based practices (EBP) at the federal, state, and local levels. Often, this requires governmental entities to use scientific evidence or formal evaluations to find the “best” course of action or practice (Jennings and Hall 2012).

The growing use and impact of evidence-based decision making has been examined by scholars in both the political science and public administration literatures. In general, the literature has treated the implementation of evidence-based decision making “as part of broader social trends professionalizing various aspects of economic and social life” (Jennings and Hall 2012, 248). Research suggests that EBP can be very difficult to use, as there is disagreement over what truly constitutes good evidence (Heinrich 2007; Maynard 2006).

The intergovernmental system, itself, has also gone through important transitions over the course of the last several decades. As Bowman and Kearney (2011, 563) note, “intergovernmental relationships are fluid, shifting in response to political, social, economic, and legal demands and constraints.” Bowman sees several political, policy, and management issues/events as having a profound impact on the dynamic relationship between federal, state, and local governments in the twenty-first century. First, she argues that the recession of 2007–2009, which most state and local governments experienced later and longer, put increased pressure on revenues and expenditures. The 2014 December issue of State and Local Government Review was dedicated to the topic of government reemerging from this recession. The authors found that the recession arguably made local economic development more important and complicated (Opp, Osgood, and Rugeley 2014), changed the way that cities engaged their public (Godwin 2014), and constrained the ability to local governments to change their contracts with private service providers (Smirnova and Leland 2014).

Second, Bowman argues that, in the last several decades, an increase in party polarization and the resultant policy gridlock within Congress has created opportunities for states to move into the policy vacuum. As Rose and Bowling (2015, 353) note, “the result of this centrifugal force has been continued divergence in a number of policy arenas” and “signs of convergence in other policy arenas.” States filled the policy vacuum in a number of different issue areas. For example, state governors, legislatures, and courts increasingly became major players in the policy areas of abortion (Kreitzer 2015), marijuana legalization (Johns 2015; Kamin 2015), and gun violence (Bowling and Pickerill 2013). States even became increasingly involved in immigration policy, which had once been dominated by the federal government. State legislatures did so by enacting policy that was related to immigration policy, without directly contradicting federal government authority (Newton and Adams 2009).

On the policy side, Bowman points to several recent changes that have occurred both federally and at the state and local levels that have affected the power dynamics of the intergovernmental system. The first major policy change that she mentioned was the congressional passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the subsequent Supreme Court decisions affecting its implementation. As Haeder and Weimer (2013, s44) note, “the ACA required states to make a decision about whether to cooperate or abdicate responsibility for three separate programs: the expansion of high-risk insurance pools in 2010, the implementation of insurance exchanges, and the expansion of Medicaid.” The decision environment proved to be fertile grounds for state politics and administration research. Specifically, scholars demonstrated the importance of party and electoral politics, administrative capacity, and state fiscal health in determining the likelihood of state ACA adoption (Haeder and Weimer 2013; Rigby and Haselswerdt 2013).

Bowman sees marriage equality as a particularly salient issue in continuing to define the relationship between federal and state governments in recent history. Specifically, she emphasized the Supreme Court rulings in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) as important because they effectively removed the issue from state policy makers. This was a significant shift in this policy area, which had been dominated by state action since 2004 when thirteen states amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage (Lewis 2005).

Bowman suggests that recent state decisions related to ballot access also characterize the fluidity of the intergovernmental system. While states have been arguably the most important intergovernmental players in policies related to election administration since our founding, research suggests that efforts to restrict access to the ballot and/or make voting more difficult have once again gained traction. These decisions can be found in state laws that require “photo identification or proof of citizenship to vote, more stringent regulation of groups or individuals who aim to register new voters, shortened early voting periods, repeal of same-day voter registration, and increased restrictions on voting by felons” (Bentele and O’Brien 2013, 1088). The literature has responded to this state legislative activity by examining both the causes and consequences of such laws. Research has demonstrated that enactment of restrictive voter registration and access laws is a product of highly competitive, partisan environments (Bentele and O’Brien 2013; Hicks et al. 2015).

On the management side, Bowman views the “increased use of nonprofit organizations to deliver public services” and “the actions by several states to assist local governments experiencing severe fiscal stress” as two significant changes to state and local governance over the course of recent history. The literature has addressed each issue and come to some interesting conclusions. First, the choice of state and local governments to contract out to nonprofits has increasingly occurred in the area of social welfare services (Austin 2003; S. R. Smith and Lipsky 2009). The choice to contract out services has led to the complications in the management of government services in which many scholars have described as the “hollow state” (Milward and Provan 2000). Research demonstrates that contracting out government services to nonprofits can be a difficult undertaking. Thus, organizations need to make significant investments in training their employees to improve the solicitation, evaluation, and management of contracts (Van Slyke 2007).

Continuity in State and Local Government

Ultimately, one phenomenon that has not changed is the power struggle between governments in the intergovernmental system. While governors attempting to defy the President on initiatives ranging from health care to high-speed rail are receiving a great deal of media attention, Bowman argues that this is not a new trend, but rather a continuation of the “contested relationship between states and the national government.” This is a point that the state politics literature has supported. In her own work (e.g., Bowman and Pagano 1992), Bowman has found that the relationship between national and state governments can be described as one of “pulling and tugging” where there are some “periods in which the federal government was much more intent on federalizing and other periods being less intent on centralizing or more likely to decentralize or shift power to state governments.”

Research, in the last decade, appears to suggest that this power struggle between state and federal governments is often driven by partisan politics rather than economic need or state demographic characteristics (Barrileaux and Rainey 2014; Nicholson-Crotty 2012). Bowman specifically highlighted the work of Nicholson-Crotty (2012), which explores the decision of governors to refuse federal grant aid or “leave money on the table.” Nicholson-Crotty (2012, 449) concludes that “there is little novelty in recent events and that the interaction of partisan and electoral pressures has been influencing state-level applications for grants-in-aid for decades.” The fact that partisan politics and polarization, and not need, are driving some of the intergovernmental conflict has led to divergence among states on a number of policy areas (Rose and Bowling 2015).

State and local governments also continue to experience some conflict, although the patterns of conflict vary from state to state. Scholars (Bowman and Kearney 2012, 2) suggest that “local jurisdictions in the United States occupy a precarious position in the intergovernmental system…dependent on their state governments for sufficient power and discretion to function effectively.” Because of this, local administrators often see themselves as being the targets of state mandates that restrict their powers (Bowman and Kearney 2012). The reality, however, is more nuanced. Bowman notes that some cities have experienced an “erosion of local government authority.” For example, in the last few years, states have stepped in to deny cities the ability to regulate fracking or declare themselves sanctuary cities. On the other hand, some cities have been empowered by their state government and given more authority and discretion to act.

Connecting Research to Practice

One critique of academic research is that it is not always connected to practice. This can be a particularly important concern for those interested in the fields of governance and administration. Bowman addressed this concern from a descriptive, rather than normative, perspective examining whether the academy “can” inform practice. She suggests that this disconnect between research and practice occurs for several reasons. First, some types of research do not lend themselves easily to practical application. She notes “there is value in basic research that aims to improve theory, contribute to general knowledge, and seemingly has little direct practical application.” Comparably, “there is also value in applied research that is oriented toward problem-solving.” A natural tension between these types of research can put scholars in a precarious situation where “we want to ask (and answer) big questions, but we are also interested in better designed policies, more effectively implemented programs, and better managed jurisdictions.”

Another reason that scholarship does not always connect to practice is a matter of translation. Bowman states that it can be difficult “gleaning the relevant lessons from methodologically sophisticated and rigorous research projects” when academics and practitioners “do not seem to speak the same language in a lot of ways.” In order to bridge the gap, she suggests that the academy may need to offer more support for activities related to practical application. She argues that while “schools of public affairs have created institutional mechanisms to try to bridge the gap…more needs to be done to get distillations of our work into the hands of policy makers.” This may include activities related to writing policy briefs or “take-aways” based on academic research, but aimed at a practitioner audience. Essentially, the goal of these briefs would be to “take what you found in your scholarly research and then distill it” for a nonacademic audience. It may also come in the form of institutional support for testifying at legislative hearings or submitting written comments about proposed regulations.

Continued Challenges and Future Research

Bowman indicated that there were challenges that state and local scholars continue to face. The first challenge is the lack of available data in easy to access format. She notes that in her own work, she often has to build her own data sets because repositories either do not exist or are very expensive because they are marketed to entities like lobbying groups. When data are not widely available, scholars often turn to case studies where data collection is more feasible. She believes there is “value for contextualized case studies, but the power of larger N, comparative work is potentially so strong.” For this reason, she suggests that there is a real need to build data repositories that are widely available to scholars at low to no cost.

A second challenge is related to theory. Brace and Jewett (1995, 663) argue that state politics defies a “simple unification under a single theory or framework.” Bowman agrees with this assessment and notes that it is true, to a certain extent, for local politics as well. However, she asserts this may be difficult to change. One possibility would be to broaden our understanding of state and local politics and government by seeking connections to work being done in other federal systems.

In the future, Bowman encourages state and local scholars to continue to pursue two lines of inquiry that she finds particularly interesting and important. First, she suggests scholarship centered on the topics of boundaries and intergovernmental relationships remain relevant in our fields. These topics are interrelated, as they are connected to the idea that state and local governments must navigate our federal system. By relationships, she is referring to the ever-changing cooperation and conflict created by the interactions between and among governments at different levels in our federal system. She further states that scholars must also pursue research that recognizes governments, particularly local governments, continue to pursue formal relationships with nongovernmental actors and this informs our “understanding how…government works.” Relatedly, she notes the importance of scholarship related to the issue of boundaries. She indicates that so often “boundaries are set up in state constitutions and they have tremendous meaning and impact” on governance and policy making. Specifically, she is interested in questions related to “how governments reach across those boundaries and how do they use those boundaries?”

The diffusion of innovation, within the political science and public administration literatures, is one area that has dedicated itself to the ideas of boundaries and intergovernmental relationships and how they influence state and local governance. As Shipan and Volden (2012, 788) note, “over the past 50 years, scholars have published nearly 1,000 research articles in political science and public administration journals about ‘policy diffusion.’ This interest in how policies spread from one government to the next has been increasing among scholars and practitioners alike.” While it is true that the diffusion literature has been thriving for some time, new research continues to shape and inform scholars and practitioners about this complex process of social learning. For example, recent work has addressed how diffusion occurs both horizontally and vertically (Karch 2012), is informed by concerns for ease and success of implementation (Nicholson-Crotty and Carley 2015), and is not immune to the forces of public opinion (Pacheco 2012).

Bowman believes that “representation” also continues to be a topic of great importance for state and local scholarship. She notes that representation is “the foundation. I’d say questions of representation…could really stand some additional scrutiny…especially at the local level.” Scholarship could build on the recent work that has been done on representative bureaucracy theory, linking passive and active representation at the local level (Bradbury and Kellough 2008; Kennedy 2014). Furthermore, research could continue to disentangle the effects of race and gender on political leadership and policy decisions in state (Cowell-Meyers and Langbein 2009; Preuhs and Juenke 2011) and local governments (Hopkins and McCabe 2012; A. R. Smith 2014).

Conclusion

The academic fields of state and local government and politics continue to develop and grow, as scholars examine why and how changes in state and local governance occur, and the impact of those changes on our broader political world. Bowman notes that while important changes have occurred in the practice and study of the intergovernmental system, one constant remains. That constant is that state and local governments are the heart and soul of our federal system. Bowman expressed a great deal of optimism about the state of state and local scholarship and excitement over the field’s next directions.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Austin

Michael J.

2003. The changing relationship between nonprofit organizations and public social service agencies in the era of welfare reform. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32:97–114.

Barrilleaux

Charles

Rainey

Carlisle

. 2014. The politics of need examining governors’ decisions to oppose the “Obamacare” Medicaid expansion. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 14:437–60.

Bentele

Keith G.

O’brien

Erin E.

2013. Jim Crow 2.0? Why states consider and adopt restrictive voter access policies. Perspectives on Politics 11:1088–116.

Bernick

E. Lee

Birds

Jonathan M.

Brekken

Katheryn

Gourrier

Al G.

Kellogg

Leander D.

. 2014. Explaining county government fiscal transparency in an age of e-government. State and Local Government Review 46:173–83.

Bowling

Cynthia J.

Pickerill

J. Mitchell

. 2013. Fragmented federalism: The state of American federalism 2012–13. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43:315–46.

Brianne

Heidbreder

. Interview with Ann Bowman. Telephone interview. November 24, 2015.

Bowman

Ann O’M.

Kearney

Richard C.

. 2011. Second-order devolution: Data and doubt. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 41:563–85.

Bowman

Ann O’M.

Kearney

Richard C.

. 2012. Are U.S. cities losing power and authority? Perceptions of local government actors. Urban Affairs Review 48:528–46.

Bowman

Ann O’M.

Pagano

Michael A.

. 1992. The state of American federalism, 1991-1992. Publius 22:1–20.

10.

Brace

Paul

Jewett

Aubrey

. 1995. The state of state politics research. Political Research Quarterly 48:643–81.

11.

Bradbury

Mark D.

Edward Kellough

. 2008. Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18:697–714.

12.

Cowell-Meyers

Kimberly

Langbein

Laura

. 2009. Linking women’s descriptive and substantive representation in the United States. Politics & Gender 5:491–518.

13.

Godwin

Marcia L.

2014. Civic engagement and fiscal stress in American cities insights from the great recession. State and Local Government Review 46:249–59.

14.

Haeder

Simon F.

Weimer

David L.

. 2013. You can’t make me do it: State implementation of insurance exchanges under the affordable care act. Public Administration Review 73:S34–47.

15.

Heinrich

Carolyn J.

2007. Evidence-based policy and performance management challenges and prospects in two parallel movements. The American Review of Public Administration 37:255–77.

16.

Herson

Lawrence J. R.

1957. The lost world of municipal government. American Political Science Review 51:330–45.

17.

Hicks

William D.

McKee

Seth C.

Sellers

Mitchell D.

Smith

Daniel A.

. 2015. A principle or a strategy? Voter identification laws and partisan competition in the American states. Political Research Quarterly 68:18–33.

18.

Hopkins

Daniel J.

McCabe

Katherine T.

. 2012. After it’s too late estimating the policy impacts of black mayoralties in U.S. cities. American Politics Research 40:665–700.

19.

Jennings

Edward T.

Hall

Jeremy L.

. 2012. Evidence-based practice and the use of information in state agency decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22:245–66.

20.

Jewell

Malcolm E.

1982. The neglected world of state politics. The Journal of Politics 44:638–57.

21.

Johns

Tracy L.

2015. Managing a policy experiment adopting and implementing recreational Marijuana policies in Colorado. State and Local Government Review 47:193–204.

22.

Jun

Kyu-Nahm

Weare

Christopher

. 2011. Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: The case of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21:495–519.

23.

Kamin

Sam

. 2015. The battle of the bulge: The surprising last stand against state Marijuana legalization. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 45:427–51.

24.

Karch

Andrew

. 2012. Vertical diffusion and the policy-making process the politics of embryonic stem cell research. Political Research Quarterly 65:48–61.

25.

Kennedy

Brandy

. 2014. Unraveling representative bureaucracy a systematic analysis of the literature. Administration & Society 46:395–421.

26.

Kreitzer

Rebecca J.

2015. Politics and morality in state abortion policy. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 15:41–66.

27.

Lewis

Gregory B.

2005. Same-sex marriage and the 2004 presidential election. Political Science and Politics 38:195–99.

28.

Lowatcharin

Grichawat

Menifield

Charles E.

. 2015. Determinants of Internet-enabled transparency at the local level: A study of Midwestern county web sites. State and Local Government Review 47:102–15.

29.

Maynard

Rebecca A.

2006. Presidential address: Evidence-based decision making: What will it take for the decision makers to care? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25:249–65.

30.

McNeal

Ramona S.

Tolbert

Caroline J.

Mossberger

Karen

Dotterweich

Lisa J.

. 2003. Innovating in digital government in the American states. Social Science Quarterly 84:52–70.

31.

Milward

H. Brinton

Provan

Keith G.

. 2000. Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10:359–80.

32.

Newton

Lina

Adams

Brian E.

. 2009. State immigration policies: Innovation, cooperation or conflict? Publius: The Journal of Federalism 39:408–431.

33.

Nicholson-Crotty

Sean

. 2012. Leaving money on the table: Learning from recent refusals of federal grants in the American states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 42:449–66.

34.

Nicholson-Crotty

Sean

Carley

Sanya

. 2015. Effectiveness, implementation, and policy diffusion or “Can we make that work for us?” State Politics & Policy Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1532440015588764

35.

Opp

Susan M.

Osgood

Jeffery L.

Rugeley

Cynthia R.

. 2014. City limits in a postrecessionary world explaining the pursuit of developmental policies after the great recession. State and Local Government Review 46:236–48.

36.

Pacheco

Julianna

. 2012. The social contagion model: Exploring the role of public opinion on the diffusion of antismoking legislation across the American states. The Journal of Politics 74:187–202.

37.

Porumbescu

Gregory A.

2015. Using transparency to enhance responsiveness and trust in local government can it work? State and Local Government Review 47:205–213.

38.

Preuhs

Robert R.

Juenke

Eric Gonzalez

. 2011. Latino U.S. state legislators in the 1990s majority-minority districts, minority incorporation, and institutional position. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11:48–75.

39.

Rigby

Elizabeth

Haselswerdt

Jake

. 2013. Hybrid federalism, partisan politics, and early implementation of state health insurance exchanges. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43:368–91.

40.

Rose

Shanna

Bowling

Cynthia J.

. 2015. The state of American federalism 2014–15: Pathways to policy in an era of party polarization. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 45:351–79.

41.

Shipan

Charles R.

Volden

Craig

. 2012. Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review 72:788–96.

42.

Smirnova

Olga V.

Leland

Suzanne M.

. 2014. Cutback management during the great recession the case of transit agencies and contracting out. State and Local Government Review 46:272–81.

43.

Smith

Adrienne R.

2014. Cities where women rule: Female political incorporation and the allocation of community development block grant funding. Politics & Gender 10:313–40.

44.

Smith

Steven Rathgeb

Lipsky

Michael

. 2009. Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

45.

Tolbert

Caroline J.

Mossberger

Karen

. 2006. The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review 66:354–69.

46.

Tolbert

Caroline J.

Mossberger

Karen

McNeal

Ramona

. 2008. Institutions, policy innovation, and e-government in the American states. Public Administration Review 68:549–63.

47.

Van Slyke

David M.

2007. Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17:157–87.

48.

Welch

Eric W.

2012. The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences 78:93–115.