John A. Hird

SUPERFUND EXPENDITURES AND CLEANUP PRIORITIES - DISTRIBUTIVE POLITICS OR THE PUBLIC-INTEREST

Using data on all final National Priorities List (NPL) sites, this study employs an integrated model of distributive and public interest politics to determine whether the overall pace of cleanup efforts and funding of the 8.5 billion Superfund program over the past eight years reflects self-interested congressional influence or public interest objectives. Despite the fact that both EPA and Congress have substantial incentives to promote the Superfund program, the results indicate that once a site is on the final NPL, there is little committee-based congressional influence over the distribution of site cleanup or funding, although evidence exists that legislators can hasten a sites transition from proposed to final status on the NPL. The chief determinants of cleanup pace and level of funding are the sites Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scores, whether federal funds are financing the cleanup, and whether the site is designated as a state priority.

Congressional Voting on Superfund: Self-Interest or Ideology?

Many allege that Superfund is a pork-barrel program that serves self-interested federal legislators. An earlier empirical study found that Superfund cleanup priorities and expenditures were not dictated by congressional committee influence, but rather largely by public interest concerns. Despite this apparent denial of classic distributive politics, it is important to recognize that pork also can arise from legislators voting to expand programs when their constituents stand to benefit disproportionately. This study examines important House and Senate votes on Superfund for their correspondence to theories of congressional self-interest and ideology. On the whole, and despite its theoretical appeal as a potentially-classic pork-barrel program, congressional voting on Superfund is found to represent legislators environmental and liberal ideologies as much as (if not more than) narrowly-defined self-interest. Along with the results of a previous study, this should be taken as evidence that Superfund has not consistently been a typical pork-barrel program, and that its rapid expansion and legislative support must be explained by other factors, including its symbolic environmental appeal.

The Study and Use of Policy Research in State Legislatures

The literature on knowledge utilization generally reveals limited use of social science research in policymaking, and the proliferation of information sources and access suggests further erosion of traditional sources of expertise. However, many studies of knowledge utilization assess whether policymakers consider written research- articles, books, reports - in reaching decisions. This emphasis on the written research product neglects an important vehicle for transmitting research to policymakers: the researchers themselves and their intermediaries. I argue that social science and policy research do influence public policymaking, yet the influence of research is mediated through think tanks and other boundary individuals and organizations that digest and transmit information to policymakers. Scholars studying research utilization should recognize the importance of people apart from written research, and scholars hoping to influence policymaking should recognize that publications alone are unlikely to sway policymakers. I offer some suggestions for how scholars and legislators can better connect knowledge and power.

Housing in San Francisco: Shelter in the Market Economy

Housing policy in the United States relies upon private enterprise to supply shelter for virtually all households in an allocation process realized by free markets. On the demand side, households generally receive housing in amounts and qualities consistent with their own choices, given their preferences, their overall budgets, and market prices. On the supply side, the design, construction, and financing of housing are organized by the private sector, with only limited and often indirect government involvement. Housing production is undertaken by entrepreneurs, many quite small, who construct housing in local and regional markets. This housing is distributed to citizens through markets in which prices are determined by supply and demand. Housing finance is governed not by direct political or parliamentary decisions, but rather by those of private financial intermediaries who offer a variety of long-and short-term financing mechanisms depending upon market conditions.

Pathways of Power: The Dynamics of National Policymaking

Pathways of Power: The Dynamics of National Policymaking Author(s): Timothy J. Conlan (School of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University, Robinson Hall A 209, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: tconlan@gmu.edu), Paul L. Posner (Director, Centers for Public Service, Robinson Hall A 253C, GeorgeMasonUniversity, 4400University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: pposner@gmu.edu.ax) and David R. Beam. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2014,

ENVIRONMENTAL-POLICY AND EQUITY - THE CASE OF SUPERFUND

29.95, ISBN 978-1-62616-039-2