Environmental Federalism at Decade's End: New Approaches and Strategies

Kraft, Michaël E.; Scheberle, Denise

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a029944

Cited by 52 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The expanded state and local enforcement of national fair housing policy is somewhat similar to general trends in national environmental policy (see Kraft and Scheberle 1998; Rabe 2006; Wood 1991, 1992). Primary enforcement responsibility (“primacy”) for clean air and other forms of environmental protection rests with state agencies—not the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Civil Rights, Federalism, and the Administrative Process: Favorable Outcomes by Federal, State, and Local Agencies in Housing Discrimination Complaints

Lamb

Wilk²

2010

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some theorists argue that cooperative intergovernmental relations are critical to policy implementation in the United States. This assertion is explored in the context of fair housing enforcement by comparing favorable administrative outcomes in fair housing complaints at the federal, state, and local levels from 1989 to 2004. What conclusions can be drawn from this systematic comparison of intergovernmental enforcement in one policy area over an extended period of time? First, cooperative federalism works well in fair housing enforcement. Second, of special significance, state civil rights agencies resolve complaints in favor of complainants nearly as often as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and localities sometimes do so even more frequently.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Civil Rights, Federalism, and the Administrative Process: Favorable Outcomes by Federal, State, and Local Agencies in Housing Discrimination Complaints

Lamb

Wilk²

2010

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It appears to be a hybridized version of new federalism and new managerialism, 22 with intergovernmental environmental partnership activities well funded, highly accountable and devolved, but according with tightly drawn, national emphases. There is continuity with Hawke's earlier partnership notions and Landcare programme, but there is also a strategic focus, accountability, flexibility and transparency that accords both with new managerialism and with environmental policy reinvention in the USA (Kraft & Scheberle, 1998). …”

Section: Environmental Federalism In Australiamentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In 1999-2000 nearly AU$ 200 million was provided by the Natural Heritage Trust to Landcare groups to undertake 2900 projects (AFFA, 2000b). By contrast in the 1998 financial year, a community-based environmental initiative of the EPA in the USA, the Sustainable Development Challenge Grant (SDCG), expended US$ 5 million to only 40 projects (Kraft and Scheberle, 1998 Environment, personal communication, 2001). This paper places the NHT initiative within the history of recent Australian environmental federalism and, while acknowledging it as a key devolutionary policy initiative, argues that it is significantly directed and controlled by the coalition government.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In comparative terms, effective federalism resonates with the American trend that Kraft & Scheberle (1998) have identified towards environmental policy reinvention and uses the same language of policy devolution, improved federal-state relations, partnership agreements and community participation. This reinvention is away from conflictual, inefficient, centralist federal policy control, and towards innovative, consensus-driven, costeffective and flexible regimes very much of the style of the NHT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effective environmental federalism? Australia's Natural Heritage Trust

Crowley

2001

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines effective federalism in relation to the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), now a AU$ 2.5 billion environmental policy initiative, and Australia's largest ever single environmental spending programme. In the absence of any other policy reviews or critiques, this paper is a descriptive and analytical piece, outlining and evaluating the NHT's administration, accountability measures and ecological outcomes against the goals of effective federalism. Effective federalism involves the national government seeking more efficient and effective delivery of environmental outcomes while revitalizing its partnerships with state and local governments to protect the environment. Both this term and the NHT are initiatives of the conservative national coalition government (which has been in office now since 1996) and have been implemented by its Environment Minister, Senator Hill. For the benefit of international readers, this paper places effective federalism in its historical context, and in the context of very familiar tensions for and against the devolution of environmental governance. It finds effective federalism to be an ambitious aim, indeed more so than the NHT's legislative goals of generating environmental investment and raising community awareness about the need for ecological sustainability.

show abstract

“…Should the responsibility to address environmental problems rest with the national or subnational levels of government? This question has been at the center of a long-standing debate about the institutional design of environmental policy in the United States (Anderson and Hill 1997;Esty 1996;Kraft and Scheberle 1998), and in other federal systems of government, such as Canada (Harrison 1996) and Germany (Rose-Ackerman 1995). For much of the past half century, U.S. environmental policy can, in part, be characterized, as a tug-of-war between federal, state, and sometimes local authorities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Preferences for Environmental Policy Responsibility

Konisky

2010

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyzing survey data from the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, this paper examines citizens' preferences for assigning policy responsibility for environmental problems to different levels of government. I find that the public generally prefers the federal government to take the lead in addressing most issues, particularly those that relate to pollution and those that have a national or global scale. The public, however, prefers to give more responsibility to state and local governments to handle local-level issues. These results suggest a desire among many in the public to match governmental policy assignment with the geographic scale of the problem. The best predictor of individual's choice of government level is political orientation, and to a lesser extent one's general confidence in each level of government.

show abstract

Environmental Federalism at Decade's End: New Approaches and Strategies

Cited by 52 publications

References 0 publications

Civil Rights, Federalism, and the Administrative Process: Favorable Outcomes by Federal, State, and Local Agencies in Housing Discrimination Complaints

Civil Rights, Federalism, and the Administrative Process: Favorable Outcomes by Federal, State, and Local Agencies in Housing Discrimination Complaints

Effective environmental federalism? Australia's Natural Heritage Trust

Public Preferences for Environmental Policy Responsibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About