The Impact of Reinventing Government on State and Federal Parks

Abstract

Over the last dozen years of the twentieth century, one major change affecting many American public policies consists of increased demands for efficiency. As a result, the demands on bureaucratic agencies responsible for delivery of public goods and services are daunting. Political authorities prescribe economic goals of efficiency and selfsufficiency for agencies while not reducing demands for attainment of political goals like efficacy and equity. Public officials have used techniques encouraging efficient behavior such as downsizing and evaluation through performance-based standards to make government more streamlined while still being effective. Have these changes occurred in different ways at different levels of the federal system? How can we explain those differences? Does the impact on the delivered goods and services vary significantly by level of government?In this article, I use a functional theory of federalism to address those questions. This theory suggests that different types of policies are most effectively implemented at different levels of government. 1 In short, governments work best when developmental policies (the provision and maintenance of services) are delegated to state governments and redistributive policies (the reallocation of resources) are left at the federal level. Empirical analyses suggest that even when considering the same policy area, agencies operating at different levels of the federal system will pursue their own tendencies that are consistent with the functional theory. Thus, implementation of the same policy at different levels will produce an emphasis on developmental potential at the state level and redistributive priorities at the national level. 2 I use this theoretical framework to consider the impact of recent demands for greater economic efficiency on the management of parks at both state and federal levels of government. I argue that, consistent with theoretical predictions, managers of state and na-

A new model for financing public colleges and universities

“…To become more self-sufficient and raise their own revenues through the 1990s, state parks developed more services and facilities, charged higher user fees, and sought corporate sponsorships. Significant unintended consequences of these efforts included an emphasis on recreation and tourism over preservation and conservation, and a perception that outdoor activitieswhich now required ever-higher entrance fees -were an elite privilege (Lowry, 2001).…”