Glenn Abney

Perceptions of the Impact of Governors and Legislatures in the State Appropriations Process

ing the appropriations process while legislatures are characterized as less influential (Anton 1966: 34-5; Sharkansky 1968: 1231; and Howard 1973: 318). The introduction of the executive budget early in this century gave most governors the capacity to direct and control state financial matters (Schick 1971: 18). Although governors still dominate the appropriations process in many states, Rosenthal (1981: 206) believes that legislatures come to their budgetary tasks far better prepared now. This article provides a contemporary analysis of the impact of legislatures and governors in state appropriation decisions from the perspectives of two sets of administrators who work in close proximity to elected officials and the appropriations process. Appropriations are the most important policy enactments of state legislatures, and the state budget is usually the matter of greatest concern in any legislative session.1 Yet, the state appropriations process has rarely been studied in a comparative and systematic way (Sharkansky 1968). Using data from a 1982 survey, this article addresses the following questions: What factors affect the ability of the legislature to contend with the influence of the governor in the appropriations process, and what difference does it make to have the governor or the legislature as the dominant branch in appropriations? Our data derive from a mail survey2 of executive budget officers and legislative fiscal officers.3 Responses were received from forty-eight of the

The Item Veto and Fiscal Responsibility

Based on the perceptions of 99 of 100 legislative and executive budget officials at the state level, this article concerns variation among the states in the impact of the item veto on fiscal responsibility That impact varies by the type of item veto and by level of usage Governors having the authority to reduce budgetary items and to delete narrative provisions in appropriations bills can and do use the item veto to promote fiscal responsibility.

Representation of Local Officials by U. S. State Legislators

Using the results of a mail survey of legislators in eight states, the authors indicate how legislators represent their local officials in the state administrative process. The intervention of legislators on behalf of local officials is discussed from the perspective of its effects on representation in the administrative process, the neutral competence of administration, and executive leadership within administration. Legislator intervention is common. The intervention is found to be a threat to neutral competence and executive leadership; however, in giving local officials from the smaller jurisdictions a greater voice in administration, intervention may promote balance in representation.

Exchanges between Interest Groups & State Administrators

The importance of interest groups to administrators is well documented in the literature of American politics and public administration.1 Interest groups have significant input in the formulation, adoption, and implementation of governmental programs. The nature of exchanges between them and administrators is often documented through case studies relating to national politics. These studies show that the relationship may constitute a subsystem involving the Congress, interest groups, and a federal agency.2 But a serious examination of the relationship between interest groups and state agencies has not been undertaken. In particular, the literature does not contain a systematic analysis, involving a large number of agencies, of the types of exchanges taking place between administrators and interest groups. The literature on state legislative politics suggests that in some states interest groups are particularly influential.3 Presumably they are also significant actors in the state administrative process. However, no evidence regarding the nature of that relationship exists.

Federal and State Impact on Local Governments A Research Note on the Views of Local Chief Executives

On the basis of a survey of 665 city and county chief executives in eight states, the authors examine the perceived impact of state and federal institutions on local government. The state legislature is the institution most often cited for its influence, and the institutions at the state level are generally perceived as more influential than those at the federal level. Centralization of state-local relations is found to be correlated negatively with perceived influence by state institutions.

Loca l cHief Exec Uti Ves Roles in the Intergovernmental Administrative Process

Are city mayors. county commission chairpersons, and city managers involved in the intergovernmental administrative process? What is the frequency of their involvement, what is the intent of their involvement, and what is the route of their involvement? These are the questions addressed in this article through a survey of such officials in eight states. The literature suggests that the centralization of the federal system and the development of vertical federalism has excluded local chief executives from the process. The responses of 665 local chief executives in the eight states indicate they contact a broad range of agencies for various purposes, but especially for their resources. Explanations for the manner of contact (direct, legislator involvement, or a combination of both) used by the various officials are explored.