The Impact of Converting Categorical into Block Grants: The Lessons from the 314(d) Block Grant in the Partnership for Health Act

Section 314(d) of P. L. 89–749, (1966), the Partnershipfor Health Act, combined nine categorical health grants intoone block grant for health. The impact of section 314(d), according to data gathered forthis study, can be summarized as follows: the block grant increasedthe administrative flexibility of state health officials; statehealth planning agencies generally did not have a major influenceon the block grant; state health planning agencies located ingovernors' offices had less influence over the block grant thanthose located in state health departments; Congress did notsignificantly increase expenditures for the block grant; nationalinfluence was increased by creating health programs that couldpotentially have been made part of the block grant; and theblock grant did not generally result in a reordering of spendingpriorities. The best explanation for the unspectacular effect of combiningseveral categorical grants into one block grant was that, withoutnew resources, the substantial (and welcome) new administrativeflexibility given state officials was insufficient to producean important substantive reordering of program priorities.     

The Supreme Court Prohibits Gerrymandering: A Gain or a Loss for the States?

The 1986 Davis v. Bandemer decision of the U.S. Supreme Courtdeclared partisan gerrymandering to be justiciable, but overruledthe federal district court's judgment that the Indiana legislativeredistricting plan was unconstitutional. The Court split onthe question of justiciability, and those justices who favoredjusticiability disagreed on the appropriate tests to apply intesting a districting plan for unfair partisan gerrymandering.The Court did not specify a clear measure and standard for outlawinggerrymandering. This gives state districting authorities anddistrict courts little guidance in dealing with gerrymandering.If, however, a successful measure and standard are developed,this action is likely to be beneficial to the states.     

Twenty-First-Century Challenges for Environmental Management

Books reviewed:
Richard N.L. Andrews, Managing the Environment—Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy
Rosemary O'Leary, Robert F. Durant, Daniel J. Fiorino, and Paul Weiland, Managing for the Environment: Understanding Legal, Organizational, and Policy Changes     

Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) : Origins, Evolution, and Future Directions

The technique of environmental impact analysis (EIA) was developed initially in the United States in response to a requirement of the National 15nvironmental Policy Act of 1969. Now adopted with variations in at least 3 0 countries antf by the European Community, EIA has proved to be a va1ua't)le component of a group of related techniques for discovering and projectirig the probable consequences of proposed action. In pursuit of iriprovenicnt in analytic technique, however, the policy rationale for EIA has too oftcii been obscured. EIA depends for full effectiveness upon in- tcgration into the policy-making process. Separated from commitment to environmental policy objectives, El.4 IS at risk of becoming redundant paperwork.     

For the Guidance of Martians: A Reply to Martin Smith on British Politics Textbooks

A recent review article in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations made a number of criticisms about the supposed lack of innovation and theoretical rigour found in current British politics textbooks. Jones and Robins constructively engage the points made in the article and argue that the criticisms made are only partly valid. They conclude that, within the obvious confines of a basic text, there is more on offer to students than there has ever been and that the success of these textbooks provides publishers with the means to cross-subsidise minority interest scholarship.     

Financial incentives and welfare reform in the United States

This paper uses a microsimulation model to ask whether welfare recipients in the United States would work full‐time if offered an earnings supplement that was conditioned on full‐time employment. The simulations suggest that the earnings supplement would increase full‐time employment, with little additional cash transfer cost to the government. In contrast, financial incentives currently being used by many of the states are increasing employment and income, but are encouraging primarily part‐time employment. Encouraging full‐time employment is particularly important in light of new time limits on welfare receipt. Faced with a loss of welfare benefits, many recipients may find that part‐time earnings do not allow them to be economically self‐sufficient. © 2001 by the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management.