FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE MINING POLICY

The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 not only established national performance standards and permitting procedures for the coal industry, but also provided for stateprimacy. The principle of state primary is both simple and intuitively appealing: Because states do not have adequate resources to develop effective regulatory programs, the federal government would set up comprehensive procedures and criteria to guide the states in preparing their own plans. The obvious advantage of state primacy is that i t provides for flexibility in implementation.
Ultimately, state primacy is an experiment in cooperative federalism, a sharing of authority and responsibility between the states and the federal government to insure both the general welfare and sensitivity to local conditions. The history of surface mining regulation is instructive because i t points out the pitfalls and promise of cooperative federalism as well as the critical role of the courts in making state primacy work.     

FEDERALISM, POLICY, AND INNOVATION IN CORRECTIONS

State governments have historically dominated corrections policy, with little federal intervention. But over the past two decades, the trend has been toward "nationalizing" corrections policy, with less interstate variation and more federal standards, through the Safe Streets Act and other legislation. As federal funding declines, it may be expected that there will be a hiatus in state corrections reform, though national standards may survive if the federal courts continue to require state correctional systems to comply with federal laws previously implemented.     

FEDERAL COURT INVOLVEMENT IN THE APPLICATION OF SURFACE MINING LAW

This article surveys 122 federal cases reported in the Surface Mining Law Summary from the earliest legislation under SMCRA to the end of 1987. The analysis distinguished between cases in which all OSMRE regulations or applications of SMCRA were upheld by the federal courts, and those in which one or more regulations/applications were overturned. The analysis further classifies the cases according to whether the decisions were favorable to industry (or, conversely, to environmental/citizen groups), according to whether the issues involved were primarily of narrow private right (or, conversely, of broad public policy), and according to state-of-origin. Finally, separate examination of those cases in which OSMRE's discretion in the enforcement of SMCRA was restricted is provided. The author concludes t h a t both the federal courts and OSMRE have been reasonably even-handed in their application of SMCRA, contrary to the earlier expectations of some proponents and opponents of surface coal mining regulation in the United States.     

PROGRAM COORDINATION IN THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE: A STATE AND LOCAL POLICY PERSPECTIVE

This paper analyzes the role of coordination criteria in employment and training service delivery within the Job Training Partnership Act system. The evolution of coordination criteria is related to current initiatives in the Employment Service at the state and local levels. An operational set of program outcome measures for monitoring coordination efforts is discussed. This set of outcome measures is formulated in the broad context of stabilizing employment and averting the "structuralization" of unemployment impacts wrought by fundamental economic change in the labor market. The assessment and monitoring of such coordination efforts is discussed.     

THE STATES AND DEREGULATION: THE CASE OF SURFACE MINING

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), passed to correct the abuses of surface mining, assigned key implementation roles to the states. While the federal government originally enforced SMCRA, states could operate the program themselves. Once states decided to run their own program the federal government would oversee them to insure they properly enforce the Act. This research examines the enforcement behavior of states in the 1980s. The results indicate that early in the Reagan administration eastern states enforced the SMCRA less stringently than other states. Eastern states increased their level of enforcement later in the 1980s in response to pressures for increased federal oversight from Congress, interest groups and others.     

THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 IN OKLAHOMA: STATE AND FEDERAL COHABITATION

The enforcement of the SMCRA in Oklahoma has led to improvements and transformations in the coal industry, state and federal regulatory agencies and the public. The catalyst for these changes was the federal takeover of inspection and enforcement of the SMCRA in Oklahoma with the state carrying on all other mining regulatory activities from 1984 through 1987. This pattern of cohabitation differed from that in Tennessee where OSM took over all enforcement of the SMCRA or that in states that enter into cooperative agreements to provide state regulation of coal mining on federal lands within the state. Cohabitation in Oklahoma produced a new, more positive attitude toward cooperative federalism by both federal and state regulatory bodies that might serve as a model for other states with OSM maintaining state agency support for policy objectives while allowing the state reasonable decisional discretion.     

STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977

The implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 in coal producing states is guided by a partial preemption policy approach t h a t establishes a balance between federal and state decision-making authority. The usefulness of this approach is assessed by analyzing state enforcement actions in relation the institutional capacity of states to shoulder regulatory responsibilities and the propensity of the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) t o oversee state enforcement actions and, if necessary, to undertake corrective action. Our results indicated that state administration of SMCRA was canstrained by the lack of effective federal oversight but was largely unaffected by interstate differences in political, economic, or administrative characteristics.     

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ROLE OF ANTHROPOLOGY IN PUBLIC POLICY

In comparison with the other social and behavioral sciences, there has been a general lack of anthropological input or interest in public policy.
This absence from the public policy arena has been the result of both historical developments and theoretical biases within the field. Nevertheless, there have been certain periods when significant numbers of anthropologists have worked in policy areas-the 1930s. World War Il-but even then their influence was not great. However, in recent years we have witnessed a rapidly growing emphasis on public policy in applied anthropology which promises to give the discipline the opportunity to become atruly holistic policy science.
In addition to the discussion of the factors which have impeded and, more recently, contributed to anthropological involvement with public policy, each of the symposium papers is briefly introduced.     

ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT

Even a dozen years since the passage of the Surface Mining. Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) there is little agreement on how well i t has worked. The paper attempts to assess the impacts of SMCRA in six major surface coal producing states. Although i t is not possible to make an unqualified overall national assessment, the evidence presented in the paper indicates that in many (but by no means all) cases, surface coal mining is now carried out in environmentally less destructive ways then before the Act. However, the accomplishments have fallen far short of expectations. The situation in some states has gotten worse than before the Act. Overall, the impact of the Act on the ground has been mixed and has depended on the rigor with which the Act has been implemented in individual coal states.     

SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT: A UTAH PERSPECTIVE

The authority to regulate the coal industry a t the state level, under state statute and rules, the importance of the coal industry to the state, the importance of an environmentally sound regulatory program, and the benefit of a state-managed abandoned mine reclamation program, in short the ability of the state to manage its own natural resources, make state primacy a necessity, not an option.
Implementation of SMCRA cannot be measured in the myriad of oversight statistics. Effectiveness means cost-effective, timely reclamation of abandoned sites; consistent, workable rules and regulatory practices; responsive program management; and compliance which is internalized in the mine's operations.     

INADEQUACIES IN THE PROCESSES OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Abstract: Policy and policy development have received considerable attention in Australia over the last decade or more. This attention has resulted in many recommendations on policy in the series of major public service inquiries of the 1970s, in a number of books and journal articles on varied aspects of public policy, and in the considerable strengthening of the policy development capacities of many government agencies. This attention has to date been inadequate, because it has in almost all cases concentrated on the questions of where within the bureaucratic structure policy development should occur and what procedural mechanisms are needed to allow ministers or cabinet to choose between alternative policies and to facilitate the coordination of policies. These questions are of course important, but questions of how a well-considered policy option that can be considered by a cabinet or a minister is actually developed appear to have been almost totally ignored. In the public service inquiries, in the published literature, and in public accounts of the work of policy units, there appears to be virtually no analysis of the process of policy development. There is little or no discussion of how the standard formal models of policy development match or fail to match the techniques used in Australia, and although there have been many individual case studies of policy issues, there are no comparative case studies from which general observations might be drawn. Lastly, there are very few positive suggestions as to how policy development in Australia could be improved. Overcoming these inadequacies provides a major challenge to Australian policy workers.     

TRENDS IN THE LOGIC OF POLICY INQUIRY: A COMPARISON OF APPROACHES AND A COMMENTARY

This paper provides an overview of trends in the logic of policy inquiry. It compares Harold Lasswell's view of the policy sciences with the applied social science approach articulated by James Coleman and revised into multiplism by Thomas Cook. Alternative approaches presented by Trudi Miller (design science) and Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Cuba (naturalistic inquiry) are also examined. Commonalities existing among them are identified.