Abstract
This paper proposes four criteria to evaluate the implementation of U.S. federal grant agency project processing procedures. The criteria - anonymity, non-perversity, implementation of program goals and adequacy - go beyond the arguments over rational-analytic versus incremental policymaking by suggesting criteria which both models can meet. Examples of two federal programs' selection procedures are used to illustrate the applicability of, and divergency from, the proposed criteria. The paper concludes with a discussion of the factors important to administrators in selecting project processing procedures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anagnoson, J. T. (1980). Public Policy in an Organizational Context: Working for the Federal Government. Washington: American Political Science Association.
Bateman, Worth (1968). “The techniques of federal program management,” In U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Federal Programs for the Development of Human Resources, Vol. I, 90th Congress, 2nd session: 100–110.
Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard (1962). Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co.
Ferejohn, John A. (1974). Pork Barrel Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Ferguson, Allen R., et al. (1966). Project Evaluation-Project Scoring for the Economic Development Administration. Los Angeles: Planning Research Corporation. PRC R-883.
Fishman, G. S., and Fitchett, D. A. (1966). Project Evaluation for EDA. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation. RM-4979-EDA.
Freeman, A. M. III (1970). “Project design and evaluation with multiple objectives,” in R. H. Haveman and J. Margolis (eds.), Public Expenditures and Policy Analysis. Chicago: Markham.
Haveman, R. H.(1965). Water Resource Investment and the Public Interest. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Jones Jr. Norman H. (1967). Project Benefits-Project Scoring for the EDA. Los Angeles: Planning Research Corporation. PRC R-895.
Marmor, T. R. (1971). “Income maintenance alternatives: Concepts, criteria and program comparisons,” in T. R. Marmor (ed.), Poverty Policy. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Nash, C., et al. (1975). “Criteria for evaluating project evaluation techniques” Journal of the American Institute of Planners (March): pp83–89.
Perloff, Harvey S., et al. (1975). Modernizing the Central City. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Selznick, P. (1948). TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California.
Sen, A. K. (1970). Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day.
Sharp, M. (1973). The State, the Enterprise and the Individual. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
U.S. Congress, Committee on Appropriations (1972). Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protection Appropriations for 1973. Washington: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1963). Congressional District Data Book. Washington: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Economic Development Administration (1974). The EDA Experience in the Evolution of Policy, a Brief History, September, 1965 –June, 1973.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1978). Accountability in the National Science Foundation's Review Process for Grant Awards Needs Strengthening. HRD-78–121. Washington: Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1979a). Should the Appalachian Commission be Used as a Model for the Nation? CED-79–50. Washington: Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1979b). Long Term Cost Implications of Farmers Home Administration Subsidized and Guaranteed Loan Program. PAD-79–15. Washington: Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1980a). Federal Disaster Assistance: What Should the Policy Be? PAD-80–39. Washington: Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1980b). Changes in Revenue Sharing Formula Would Eliminate Payment Inefficiencies, Improve Targeting Among Local Governments. GGD-80–69. Washington: Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1980c). The Impact of Tiering and Constraints on the Targeting of Revenue Sharing Aid. PAD-80–9. Washington: Government Printing Office.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I wish to thank Peter deLeon, Don S. Schwerin, M. Stephen Weatherford, and two anonymous reviewers for their extensive comments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anagnoson, J.T. Equity, efficiency and political feasibility in federal project selection procedures. Policy Sci 14, 331–345 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137395
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137395