DOCSLIB.ORG

Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution Author(S): Joe Soss, Sanford F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution Author(S): Joe Soss, Sanford F Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution Author(s): Joe Soss, Sanford F. Schram, Thomas P. Vartanian and Erin O'Brien Source: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 378-395 Published by: Midwest Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2669347 . Accessed: 08/10/2013 20:46 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Political Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 146.95.253.17 on Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:46:24 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Settingthe Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choicesin the Devolution Revolution JoeSoss AmericanUniversity SanfordF. Schram BrynMawr College Thomas P. Vartanian BrynMawr College ErinO'Brien AmericanUniversity The landmarkwelfare legislation of n 1996, the federalgovernment passed legislationthat transformed 1996 offersstudents of politicsa publicassistance provision in theUnited States. The PersonalRespon- unique opportunityto pinpointthe sibilityand WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) determinantsof state-levelpolicy abolishedthe federal entitlement to aid thatgrew out of theSocial Security choices-a case in whichthe fifty Actof 1935 and reachedfruition through legal victories in the 1960s(Mink states responded virtuallysimulta- 1998; Lurie 1997). In its place,the federalgovernment created Temporary neouslyto a single policy mandate. Assistancefor Needy Families (TANF), a systemof block grantsthat gives Takingadvantage of thisopportunity, statesmore freedom to selectamong policy tools but also imposesa force- we investigatethe factorsthat led ful mandate to promote work,reduce welfareusage, and change poor states to make restrictivepolicy people'sbehaviors (Albelda and Tilly1997). choices after1996 and use this In this article,we presenta political analysisof the ways statesre- analysis to evaluate general-theories sponded to thisnew policyenvironment. Specifically, we investigatethe of welfarepolitics. Specifically, we factorsthat shaped state-levelpolicy choices after 1996 and use thisanaly- test six types of explanationsfor why sis as a basis for evaluating general explanations for welfarepolicy some states responded by adopting outcomes.Our studybuilds on a long traditionof quantitativeresearch 'get-tough"program rules: theories thathas attemptedto illuminatestate-level politics by askingwhy states thatidentify welfare policy as a site of adopt differentwelfare policies (Howard 1999; Rom 1999; Brace and ideological conflict,as an outcome of Jewitt1995; Petersonand Rom 1990; Plotnickand Winters1985). The electoral politics,as a domain of analysispresented here, however, departs from prior work in two impor- policyinnovation, as an instrumentof tantrespects. social control,as an outletfor racial First,most state-level research has soughtto explaininterstate differ- resentments,and as an expression of ences in benefitlevels and spendingpatterns (Howard 1999, 424-425; moralvalues. The resultsof our or- dered and binarylogit models sug- gest thatstate policies have been shaped by a varietyof social and JoeSoss is AssociateProfessor of Government,American University, 4400 Massachu- politicalforces, but especially by the settsAve., NW, Washington, D.C. 20016-8130([email protected]). Sanford F. Schram racial compositionof familieswho rely is VisitingProfessor of Social Workand Social Research,Bryn Mawr College,300 AirdaleRd., Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-1697([email protected]). Thomas Vartanian on programbenefits. is AssociateProfessor of Social Workand Social Research,Bryn Mawr College,300 AirdaleRd., Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-1697([email protected]). Erin O'Brien is a Ph.D. candidatein theDepartment of Government, American University, 4400 Massa- chusettsAve., NW, Washington, D.C. 20016-8130([email protected]). We wouldlike to extendour thanksto RobertAlbritton, Jim Baumohl, Nathan Dietz, RichardFording, Heather Girvin, Gary Krueger, Claudia Krugovoy, Julia Littell, Justine McNamara,Frances Fox Piven, Ellen Szabo, Greg Caldeira, and theanonymous review- ersfor suggestions that helped us improveon earlierversions of thisarticle. We also thankGary King, Michael Tomz, and JasonWittenberg for technical help regarding theirClarify program and RobertLieberman and GregShaw for sharing their data. AmericanJournal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 2,April 2001, Pp. 378-395 ?2001 bythe Midwest Political Science Association 378 This content downloaded from 146.95.253.17 on Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:46:24 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SETTING THE TERMS OF RELIEF 379 Petersonand Rom 1990).1By contrast,we analyzevaria- WelfarePolicymaking: tion in the institutionalform of welfareprovision-the A NewDivision of Labor rules and penalties that condition access to resources and structurethe treatmentcitizens receive in govern- Whenthe federal government abolished the Aid to Fami- mentprograms. In the 1990s,public officialsshowed re- lies withDependent Children (AFDC) programin 1996, newedinterest in using programrules as toolsto modify it removed a frameworkof rules that had structured poor people's behaviors (Mead 1997). The federalgov- state-leveladministration of cash aid since the 1960s. ernment's1996 law such aid emphasized requirements, Withits new systemof block grants,the 1996 law ended and as states responded to this directive,their policy the federalguarantee of matchingfunds and allowed changes focused less on the amounts of reliefoffered statesto pursue a wider varietyof policy innovations thanon the termson whichaid is given(Schram 1999). withoutseeking waivers from the federalgovernment. Indeed, preliminary evidence suggeststhat states have Proponentstouted the new TANF systemas a "devolu- differedmarkedly in the policies they have adopted tion revolution"that would liberatethe statesfrom sti- (Mettler2000) and thatthese policy choices have been a flingfederal rules and allowthem to createmore effective majorfactor driving interstate differences in caseload re- povertypolicies. Such claimscontain a grainof truthre- duction(Rector and Youssef1999). gardingshifts in theintergovernmental division of labor, Second,most prior research has been unableto com- but they also conveythe misleading impressionthat parepolicy choices made a time un- during single period statesnow enjoyan unprecedenteddegree of liberty. der roughlysimilar conditions. Most cross-sectional In theAmerican political system defined by federal- for to variationin wel- studies, example,appear analyze ism,localism, and a relativelyweak and fragmentedna- faregrants for a single butthe choicesthat set year, policy tionalgovernment, state-level politics has alwaysplayed a thegrants for any given year were actually made at differ- keyrole in shapingthe amount and formof public aid for ent timesin differentstates. As a result,the analysisin- thepoor (Trattner1999; Noble 1997; Skocpol 1996). Be- a in cludes greatdeal of unobservedvariation thepoliti- ginningin 1911 withmothers' pensions and later,after cal forces on statesas acted to set their impinging they 1935,in the Aid to DependentChildren program, state grantlevels. In addition, historical raise such lags doubts administrationand interstatevariation were defining fea- about how well indicatorsfor a of ac- givenyear analysis turesof public aid forpoor families(Gordon 1994). In the in the tuallymeasure the conditionsthat existed year wake of insurgentactivism and legal victoriesin the grant levels were established.Our addresses analysis 1960s,the federalgovernment applied a broad set of na- theseproblems by of the cir- takingadvantage unique tionalstandards to state-leveladministrators (Davis 1993; cumstances welfare of 1996. surroundingthe legislation Melnick1994). Interstatevariation, however, remained a Here,we have a case in which states the fifty responded signal characteristicof the AFDC programthat distin- virtually to a mandate. simultaneously single policy guishedit fromthe nationalsystem of social insurance From an analyticstandpoint, it is hard to imagine a coveragein theUnited States (Peterson and Rom 1990). strongeropportunity to the determinantsof pinpoint Withthe passage of PRWORAin 1996,states gained state-level choices.To researchershave policy date, pro- more authorityover eligibility rules and administrative duced some good case studies(Francis 1999) and efforts procedures than they had enjoyed for three decades to classifystate policies but therehave (Mettler2000), (Mettler2000). At the same time,however, the federal been fewsystematic analyses of whystates responded to law also imposed a varietyof new mandatesthat con- thefederal mandate in different ways. strainedthe policyoptions available to statelawmakers In sum,this study presents an empiricalassessment and bureaucrats(Kincaid 1998). For example,the federal of theories to welfare choices purporting explain policy governmentset strictquotas on the percentageof
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Link: Administrative Exclusion and Second Order Devolution Rhucha Samudra the College at Brockport, SUNY, [email protected]
    Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Volume 26 | Number 1 Article 4 June 2019 Exploring the Link: Administrative Exclusion and Second Order Devolution Rhucha Samudra The College at Brockport, SUNY, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp Part of the Political Science Commons, Public Administration Commons, Social Policy Commons, and the Social Welfare Commons Recommended Citation Samudra, Rhucha (2019) "Exploring the Link: Administrative Exclusion and Second Order Devolution," Journal of Public Management & Social Policy: Vol. 26 : No. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol26/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Public Management & Social Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Scholarship @ Texas Southern University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Exploring the Link: Administrative Exclusion and Second Order Devolution Cover Page Footnote Author thanks Bradley Hardy, Pamela Viggiani, Jocelyn Johnston, Keith Baker and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the previous versions of the manuscript. This article is available in Journal of Public Management & Social Policy: https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol26/iss1/4 Samudra: Exploring the Link Journal of Public Management & Social Policy Spring 2019 Exploring the Link: Administrative Exclusion and Second Order Devolution Rhucha Samudra The College at Brockport, State University of New York Devolution was embedded in the 1996 welfare reform. Using the National Survey of America’s Families, this article explores the relationship between living in a Second Order Devolution (SOD) state and administrative exclusion from a welfare program.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Federalism
    Constitutional INSIGHTS No. 2 October 2018 Summary Federalism or devolution involves the Implementing Federalism organization of public power so that government, on at least two levels, is responsive and accountable to the Introduction people that it serves. More than 25 countries around the world operate as More than 25 countries around the world operate as a federation of some a federation of some kind. Many more kind. Many more devolve power in other ways, across the country or in devolve power in other ways, either particular regions with special autonomy. Some of the older federations across the country or in particular are well-established; India, Malaysia and Pakistan are examples. Others regions with special autonomy. This are much more recent, however. Many new constitutions provide for issue of Constitutional INSIGHTS federation or some form of devolution. In Asia and the Pacific, for explains why any change from a example, the new Constitution of Nepal establishes a federation, and centralized to a federal or devolved federalism is under consideration in Myanmar, the Philippines and system is a significant one. It also Solomon Islands. outlines some of the challenges that Federalism or devolution involves the organization of public power so arise in the context of such change, that government on at least two levels is responsive and accountable to and suggests options that might be the people that it serves. There are all sorts of reasons why countries available to meet them. and their peoples might find that arrangements like this offer benefits that a centralized system of government does not. Federations may be About this series established to assist democratisation; as a way of resolving conflict; as a framework for self-determination; to disperse concentrations of power; to The Melbourne Forum on Constitution- manage government in large countries; or for any combination of these or Building in Asia and the Pacific other reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Territory, Power and Statecraft: Understanding English Devolution
    Regional Studies ISSN: 0034-3404 (Print) 1360-0591 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20 Territory, power and statecraft: understanding English devolution Sarah Ayres, Matthew Flinders & Mark Sandford To cite this article: Sarah Ayres, Matthew Flinders & Mark Sandford (2017): Territory, power and statecraft: understanding English devolution, Regional Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2017.1360486 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1360486 © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 07 Sep 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 483 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cres20 Download by: [University of Sheffield] Date: 06 October 2017, At: 06:46 REGIONAL STUDIES, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1360486 Territory, power and statecraft: understanding English devolution Sarah Ayresa , Matthew Flindersb and Mark Sandfordc ABSTRACT In recent decades, the devolution of power to subnational regional authorities has formed a key element of what has been termed the ‘unravelling’ or ‘unbundling’ of the state in many parts of the world. Even in the United Kingdom, with its distinctive global reputation as a power-hoarding majoritarian democracy, the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since 1998 can be located within this broader devolutionary dynamic. In recent years, this process has focused on ‘the English question’ and a reform agenda that claimed to offer a ‘devolution revolution’. This paper offers the first research-led analysis of the scope, scale and implications of these post-2015 reforms to English governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution System Made Simple a Popular Version of County Governance System Devolution System Made Simple a Popular Version of County Governance System
    Devolution System made Simple A Popular Version of County Governance System Devolution System made Simple A Popular Version of County Governance System November 2012 Devolution System made Simple 1 2 Devolution System made Simple Introduction Devolution is one of the major changes that the Constitution adopted by Kenyans at the referendum held on 4th August 2010 and promulgated on 27th August 2010 has made to the arrangement of government in Kenya. It is a unique and new experience to a majority of Kenyans. This is in spite of the fact that Kenya experimented with a similar system at independence. This flier has been produced to make the new devolved system easy to understand and to avoid confusion which normally comes with very many interpretations from equally very many sources. Devolution System made Simple 3 A. Understanding Devolution And The Devolved System What is Devolution? • The devolution that Kenya has adopted is provided for this in Article 1 (3) and (4); Article 6 (1) and (2); Chapter Eleven and in the First Schedule and Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. • Devolution is the proper distribution of State functions and powers amongst and between the three arms of government. The three arms of government are: - > The Legislature or the law and policy making body; > The Executive or the arm that implements laws and policies made by the Legislature. The Executive also runs the day to day operations of government; and > The Judiciary, which resolves disputes between the Legislature and Executive, between and amongst the citizens and also interprets and enforces the laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights, Separation of Powers and Devolution in the Kenyan Constitution, 2010: Comparison and Lessons for Eac Member States
    HUMAN RIGHTS, SEPARATION OF POWERS AND DEVOLUTION IN THE KENYAN CONSTITUTION, 2010: COMPARISON AND LESSONS FOR EAC MEMBER STATES ∗∗∗ By Prof. Christian Roschmann, Mr. Peter Wendoh & Mr. Steve Ogolla Abstract This paper is essentially a study of the new governance system in Kenya and an explanation why constitutional democracy holds the key to the promotion of human rights; entrenchment of the rule of law and the realisation of good governance. The paper suggests that the concept of constitutional democracy is not the same thing as constitutional government; accordingly, to achieve constitutional democracy, a government must be both constitutional and democratic. Further, this paper focuses on the structures, powers and organizing principles of the devolved governance and explores the challenges that lie ahead to ensure that constitutional democracy endures and is strengthened. The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 seeks to establish a society permeated by the spirit of liberty and democracy, the spirit of the laws and the habit of order. This paper proceeds from the assumption that although the constitutional models across the East Africa Community vary considerably, they share common themes that led to the demise of constitutional democracy, human rights violations and weaker institutions of government. The design and architecture of Kenya’s new constitution may, therefore, herald the beginning of the return of the East Africa Community to constitutional democracy. A. Introduction A historical inquiry of the foundations of Kenya’s political system, traceable to the colonial rule, underscores the very political basis of Kenya’s Constitution. Lord Delamere, a pioneer European farmer in Kenya believed the extension of European civilisation was desirable 1.
    [Show full text]
  • When the Demos Shapes the Polis - the Use of Referendums in Settling Sovereignty Issues
    When the Demos Shapes the Polis - The Use of Referendums in Settling Sovereignty Issues. Gary Sussman, London School of Economics (LSE). Introduction This chapter is a survey of referendums dealing with questions of sovereignty. This unique category of referendum usage is characterized by the participation of the demos in determining the shape of the polis or the nature of its sovereignty. The very first recorded referendums, following the French Revolution, were sovereignty referendums. Though far from transparent and fair, these votes were strongly influenced by notions of self- determination and the idea that title to land could not be changed without the consent of those living on that land. Since then there have been over two hundred and forty sovereignty referendums. In the first part of this chapter I will briefly review referendum usage in general. This international analysis of 1094 referendums excludes the United States of America, where initiatives are extensively used by various states and Switzerland, which conducted 414 votes on the national level from 1866 to 1993. This comparative analysis of trends in referendum usage will provide both a sketch of the geographical distribution of use and a sense of use by issue. In the second section of this chapter I examine the history and origins of the sovereignty referendum and identify broad historical trends in its use. It will be demonstrated there have been several high tides in the use of sovereignty referendums and that these high tides are linked to high tides of nationalism, which have often followed the collapse of empires. Following this historical overview a basic typology of six sub-categories, describing sovereignty referendums will be suggested.
    [Show full text]
  • War of Devolution Treaty
    War Of Devolution Treaty Firmamental Adam chequers no miscount indite fadelessly after Enrico reprocess incommunicatively, quite shut-in. Confirmatory Bernhard disinherits: he hydrolyses his interpellant raggedly and inconceivably. Hail-fellow-well-met Rodge swindle, his gip hive staves palely. The sale liquidation or devolution of ownership in enemy you or the. This essay explores 19th and 20th century wars and revolutions in the US and. Louis entered negotiations before agreeing to peace by the pardon of. Treaty between United States and Great Britain for the. The Republic of Armenia acted as is equal importance to whether Treaty. Mariana of bruges, both were lost on a complement, the united provinces in war of devolution to german government has not enhanced his advantage. Second soul War II pitted the Axis powers led by Germany and Italy with. History and eastern arctic entity in telling that of war was located with. Kennedy hickman is dissolved under british government, welsh gva is nothing like economic chain believes veterans is. Why did Napoleon not invade Portugal? The Good Friday Agreement Ending War and Ending Conflict. A Tale as expertise as Devolved Time Sewel Stormont and the. King Louis XIV French Mastermind HistoryNet. War of Devolution Facts for Kids Kids encyclopedia facts. Thank you using different treaties falling back devolution worked because of war crime has worked because i was a treaty underlines concerns about later wars in alliance. Gnwt and treaties debate. He entered the government in 1906 and spearheaded the devolution of. Black Hole University of Michigan Law School. Politics and Diplomacy Emblems during the liaison of JStor.
    [Show full text]
  • Decentralized Forms of Government
    A Practical Guide to Constitution Building: Decentralized Forms of Government Markus Böckenförde This paper appears as chapter 7 of International IDEA’s publication A Practical Guide to Constitution Building. The full Guide is available in PDF and as an e-book at <http://www.idea.int> and includes an introductory chapter (chapter 1) and chapters on principles and cross-cutting themes in constitution building (chapter 2), building a culture of human rights (chapter 3), and constitution building and the design of the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary (chapters 4, 5 and 6). International IDEA resources on Constitution Building A Practical Guide to Constitution Building: Decentralized Forms of Government © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), 2011 This publication is independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council of Member States, or those of the donors. Applications for permission to reproduce all or any part of this publication should be made to: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) Strömsborg SE -103 34 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46-8-698 37 00 Fax: +46-8-20 24 22 Email: [email protected] Website: www.idea.int Design and layout by: Turbo Design, Ramallah Printed by: Bulls Graphics, Sweden Cover design by: Turbo Design, Ramallah Cover illustration by: Sharif Sarhan ISBN: 978-91-86565-34-3 This publication is produced as part of the Constitution Building Programme implemented by International IDEA with funding from the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution Or Deconstruction Czecho-Slovak Style
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 13 Issue 4 1992 Devolution or Deconstruction Czecho-Slovak Style Eric Stein University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric Stein, Devolution or Deconstruction Czecho-Slovak Style, 13 MICH. J. INT'L L. 786 (1992). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol13/iss4/2 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEVOLUTION OR DECONSTRUCTION CZECHO-SLOVAK STYLE Eric Stein * This essay is a part of a broaderstudy entitled "Post-communist Con- stitution-making: Confessions of a Comparatist" which focuses on Czechoslovakia. The present Czech and Slovak Federative Republic is a unique variant offederalism. It is composed of only two component units (shades of Leb- anon, Cyprus, perhaps Belgium), and it is seriously asymmetric: demo- graphically, there are twice as many Czechs and Moravians in the Czech Republic as there are Slovaks in the Slovak Republic; economically, the Czech area has been highly industrialized while Slovak industrialization has come much later and is less diversified; historically, the Czech lands have had a long tradition of politicaland cultural identity even as part of the Austro-HungarianEmpire, while the Slovaks remained under an op- pressive Hungarian dominance for a thousand years until the establish- ment of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918.
    [Show full text]
  • Autonomism and Federalism
    Publius: The Journal of Federalism Advance Access published May 27, 2011 Autonomism and Federalism Jaime Lluch* *European Studies Center, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford; [email protected] This article aims to understand autonomism as an ideology of territorial order and institutional design. In particular, I ask whether the theory and practice of autonomism is consonant with federalist principles. ‘‘Autonomism’’ is a normative term that advocates the use of autonomist principles, and it has an intricate relationship with federalism, but is generally distinct from it. Autonomists are wary of federalism because they believe it has homogenizing and uniformizing tendencies. Autonomism as an ideology of territorial order and institutional design exhibits a number of clear anti-federalist stances, but yet it is based on the general federalist principle that multiple levels of government can lead to better governance in multinational states. To this com- Downloaded from plex anti-federalist and federalist hybrid stance, autonomism adds a nuanced anti-secessionism stance. publius.oxfordjournals.org Autonomism In many multinational democracies, models of federation are the preferred insti- tutional configuration to address the complexities of multinationalism, and much by guest on May 30, 2011 of the scholarly literature echoes this preference for federation (Keating 2004; Hechter 2000; Norman 2006; Kymlicka 1998; Gibbins et al. 1998; Stepan 2001; Burgess and Gagnon 1993; Elazar 1987; Watts 2008; McRoberts 1997; Griffiths et al. 2005; Gagnon and Iacovino 2007; Karmis and Norman 2005).1 Yet, there are autonomist national parties in sub-state national societies that reject a model of federation as an appropriate institutional design to address their needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Second-Order Devolution, Bureaucratic Discretion and the Implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2008 SECOND-ORDER DEVOLUTION, BUREAUCRATIC DISCRETION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM Byungkyu Kim University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Kim, Byungkyu, "SECOND-ORDER DEVOLUTION, BUREAUCRATIC DISCRETION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM" (2008). University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations. 633. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_diss/633 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Byungkyu Kim The Graduate School University of Kentucky 2008 SECOND-ORDER DEVOLUTION, BUREAUCRATIC DISCRETION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Byungkyu Kim Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Richard C. Fording, Professor of Political Science Lexington, Kentucky 2008 Copyright © Byungkyu Kim 2008 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION SECOND-ORDER DEVOLUTION, BUREAUCRATIC DISCRETION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM The passage of PRWORA in 1996 gave states the opportunity to engage in second- order devolution (SOD), which allows local governments to exercise more discretionary power in the implementation of welfare policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Decentralization, Deconcentration and Devolution: What Do They Mean?1
    Decentralization, deconcentration and devolution: what do they mean?1 Compiled by Elizabeth Linda Yuliani2 Decentralization with its various types has been implemented in many countries, and the terms have been widely used. However, the same word is often used to describe different things. Interpretations vary, and have led to different conceptual frameworks, programs, implementation and implications. Such differences have invited debates and discussion. This document lists definitions of decentralization, deconcentration, devolution and other related terms used in papers presented at the Interlaken Workshop on Decentralization, 27-30 April 2004, Interlaken, Switzerland. As this is a work in progress, there may be many parts needing improvement/changes. We look forward to receiving your comments and suggestions ([email protected]). Decentralization Definitions and descriptions of decentralization used in the papers include: • “Decentralisation is usually referred to as the transfer of powers from central government to lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy (Crook and Manor 1998, Agrawal and Ribot 1999). This official power transfer can take two main forms. Administrative decentralisation, also known as deconcentration, refers to a transfer to lower-level central government authorities, or to other local authorities who are upwardly accountable to the central government (Ribot 2002). In contrast, political, or democratic, decentralisation refers to the transfer of authority to representative and downwardly accountable actors, such as elected local governments” (Larson). • “The term decentralisation is used to cover a broad range of transfers of the "locus of decision making" from central governments to regional, municipal or local governments” (Sayer et al.). • Decentralization reform refers to “transforming the local institutional infrastructure for natural resource management on which local forest management is based” (Ribot).
    [Show full text]