The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

References

• Arrow, K. J., Chenery, H. B., Minhas, B. S., & Solow, R. M. (1961). Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. Review of Economics and Statistics, 43(3), 225-250.
   Google Scholar
• Bellone, C., & Goerl, G. (1992). Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 130-134.
   Google Scholar
• Chubb, J. E. (1985). The political economy of federalism. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 994-1015.
   Google Scholar
• deLeon, L. (1998). Accountability in a reinvented government. Public Administration, 76(3), 539-558.
   Google Scholar
• Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376-417.
   Google Scholar
• Frederickson, D. G., & Frederickson, H. G. (2006). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gamkhar, S. (2000). Is the response to state and local highway spending symmetric to increases and decreases in federal highway grants? Public Finance Review, 28(1), 3-25.
   Google Scholar
• Gamkhar, S., & Oates, W. E. (1996). Asymmetries in the response to increases and decreases in intergovernmental grants: Some empirical findings. National Tax Journal, 49(4), 501-512.
   Google Scholar
• Government Accountability Office. (2010a). Recovery Act: Opportunities to improve management and strengthen accountability over states' and localities' use of funds. GAO-10-999.
   Google Scholar
• Government Accountability Office. (2010b). Recovery Act: States' and localities' uses of funds and actions needed to address implementation challenges and bolster accountability. GAO 10-604.
   Google Scholar
• Government Accountability Office. (2010c). Recovery Act: One year later, states' and localities' uses of funds and opportunities to strengthen accountability. GAO-10-437.
   Google Scholar
• Gramlich, E. M., Courant, P., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1979). The stimulative effects of intergovernmental grants: Or why money sticks where it hits. In P. Mieszkowsky & W. Oakland (Eds.), Fiscal federalism and grants in aid (pp. 5-21). Washington, DC: Committee on Urban Public Economics, and the Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L. (2008a). The forgotten regional organizations: Creating capacity for economic development. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 110-125.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L. (2008b). Assessing local capacity for federal grant-getting. American Review of Public Administration, 38(4), 463-479.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L. (2008c). The changing federal grant structure and its potential effects on state/local community development efforts. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 20(1), 46-71.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L. (2010a). The distribution of federal economic development grant funds: A consideration of need and the rural/urban divide. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(4), 311-324.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L. (2010b). Giving and taking away: Exploring federal grants' differential burden on metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 40(2), 257-274.
   Google Scholar
• Handley, D. M. (2008). Strengthening the intergovernmental grant system: Long-term lessons for the federal-local relationship. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 126-136.
   Google Scholar
• Hedge, D. M. (1983). Fiscal dependency and the state budget process. Journal of Politics, 45(1), 198-208.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, E. (1998). Principles for rethinking the federal government's role in economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 12, 299-312.
   Google Scholar
• Hines, J. R., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Anomalies: The flypaper effect. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 217-226.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, O. (1994). Public management and administration: an introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koppell, J. G. S. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of "multiple accountabilities disorder." Public Administration Review 65(1), 94-108.
   Google Scholar
• Lynn, L. (1992). Management without managers: The false promise of administrative reform. Paper presented at the colloquium La modernisation de la gestion publique—les leçons de l'expérience, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• McCubbins, M., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 16-79.
   Google Scholar
• Moe, R. (1994). The "reinventing government" exercise: Misinterpreting the problem, misjudging the consequences. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 111-122.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. R., & Shih, M.-C. (1991). Targeting state and federal aid to city needs. State and Local Government Review, 23(2), 60-68.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nathan, R. P., & Doolittle, F. C. (1985). Federal grants: Giving and taking away. Political Science Quarterly, 100(1), 53-74.
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K. (1998). The changing nature of accountability: The role of the inspector general in federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 58(2), 129-136.
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien, R. M., Clark, M., & Kamieniecki, S. (1984). Open and closed systems of decision making: The case of toxic waste management. Public Administration Review, 44(4), 334-340.
   Google Scholar
• Piotrowski, S. J., & Rosenbloom, D. H. (2002). Nonmission-based values in results-oriented public management: The case of freedom of information. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 643-657.
   Google Scholar
• Posner, P. (2007). Assessing federal program performance: Observations on the U. S. Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool and its use in the budget process. Public Performance and Management Review, 30(3), 351-368.
   Google Scholar
• Posner, P. L. (2002). Accountability challenges of third-party government. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rich, M. J. (1989). Distributive politics and the allocation of federal grants. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 193-213.
   Google Scholar
• Romzek, B. S., and & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227-238.
   Google Scholar
• Stine, W. F. (1994). Is local government revenue response to federal aid symmetrical? Evidence from Pennsylvania County governments in an era of retrenchment. National Tax Journal, 47(4), 799-816.
   Google Scholar
• U. S. Congress. (2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H. R. 1). 111th Congress. Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1:/
   Google Scholar
• Volden, C. (1999). Asymmetric effects of intergovernmental grants: Analysis and implications for U. S. welfare policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 29(3), 51-73.
   Google Scholar
• Westin, S. M. (1998). Balancing flexibility and accountability: Grant program design in education and other areas. Testimony before the Education Task Force, Committee on the Budget, U. S. Senate. GAO/T-GGD/HEHS-98-94.
   Google Scholar