The Search for Better Government Peformance: Understanding the impact of management quality and resources on transportation infrastructure outcomes in the American states

Abstract

The relationship between management quality, resources and transportation infrastructure condition outcomes is explored in a comparative analysis of American states. The analysis indicates that good management and real resources have a positive impact on transportation infrastructure condition outcomes. The study illustrates the importance of using measures of real versus financial resources when modelling the impact of resources on government performance. The author also discusses the need to use concrete and general measures of management quality and mixed methods in research seeking to assess the relationship between management quality and government performance. The study should be of particular interest to practitioners, policymakers, and public administration scholars seeking practical insights on how to improve research and practice related to public management and government performance.

Key words:

• Public management
• policy implementation
• government performance
• transportation policy and management

Notes

1. For example, there is a Pearson correlation of 0.84 between the 1999 and 2001 overall grades and correlation of 0.81 between the 2001 and 2005 overall grades, suggesting relative stability and continuity in the overall grades over time.

2. More detailed information on the grading process can be found at www.governing.com/gpp/index.htm, www.pewcenteronthestates.org/initiatives_detail.aspx?initiativeID=36072 and in Ammar et al. (2000).

3. Although national funding is not as directly related to use, since national gas tax money is redistributed after being received from the states (www.transportation-finance.org/funding_financing/).

4. This would be the percentage of bridges not classified as structurally deficient. ‘A structurally deficient bridge, when [it is] left open to traffic, typically requires significant maintenance and repair to remain in service and eventual rehabilitation or replacement to address deficiencies’ (www.iowadot.gov/subcommittee/bridgetermspz.aspx).

5. For an example of lobbying on bridge safety concerns, see www.artba.org/mediafiles/artba-recommendations-on-national-bridge-inspection-program.pdf. For an example of lobbying priorities among pro-infrastructure interest groups see the American Road and Transportation Builders 2012 lobbying priorities www.artba.org/advocacy/government-affairs/current-issues/2012-top-objectives/.