Abstract
This study explores how policy funding context-defined as whether funding for a social service policy domain is discretionary or mandated-affects network structures in social service domains. We present comparative findings from two social service policy networks which differ with respect to funding context: A 47-actor adult basic education policy network that is funded discretionarily and a 40-actor mental health policy network where spending is mandated. Both are located in a US state we pseudonymed “Newstatia.” Using an exponential random graph model, we found that policy funding contexts affect how the locus of resource dependence interacts with the nature of client groups to determine the array of interest organizations engaged in the networks, which leads to differentials in network structure across these domains. We suggest that policy funding contexts are before resource dependence and client factors when explaining network structure. This opens space for reconsideration of the causal claims between policy funding contexts, resource dependence, advocacy mobilization, and network structures.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 388-405 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jun 15 2018 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Public Management Research Association.
Funding
Under the banner of “the welfare state,” government makes many promises to socially vulnerable people with respect to their living standards and social well-being. In current federal, state, and local policy decision making and implementation processes, social service policy is generally executed through either discretionary or mandatory budget allocations. Discretionary spending refers to “expenditure that is governed by annual or other periodic appropriations rather than by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation” (OECD 2012, 3). Examples include health care spending for American Indians and Alaska Natives by the Federal government; early childhood education, health, and nutrition programs for low-income children and families; Head Start; scientific research through the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation; and food assistance for Women, Infants, and Children. Specifically, when a social service program is authorized on a multi-year basis with general policy guidelines and maximum spending, funds are annually appropriated by the legislature. Legislators may choose to appropriate amounts that range from zero to the maximum of the authorization. Thus, advocates for a given social service program must, at least annually, seek political support from lawmakers for continuation of the program, or the programs will die. Since there are often no alternative markets for the goods and services that the social service providers produce, providers often fail without annual state contracts or grants (Park and Rethemeyer 2014). In this sense, we expect that resource seekers in a social service area where state resources are distributed discretionarily will actively engage in legislative political action and coalition building (e.g., organizing an industry association) to secure the resources necessary for survival. Legislative advocacy, such as writing letters, sending emails, or making phone calls to members or creating coalitions to collectively lobby for legislation, is often required to maintain state effort when services are discretionarily funded.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| National Science Foundation Arctic Social Science Program | |
| National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Sociology and Political Science
- Public Administration
- Marketing
