This research builds further on the existing conceptual framework of the relationship between decentralization and service delivery and provides a cross-country empirical examination of the core dimensions of decentralization reform on access to two key services: health care and improved drinking water sources. The regression results provide evidence supporting positive and significant effects of fiscal, administrative, and political decentralization, individually, on the variables used to measure access to health care, and improved water provision; although the size and robustness of such effects varies for each dimension of decentralization in relation to each service examined. The results obtained in this study suggest that there is an additional (or "extra") positive effect coming from the interaction of two decentralization dimensions on access to health care and water services (that is, a mutually-reinforcing effect additional to the individual effect of each dimension of decentralization). The results obtained also support the expectation that developing countries could benefit significantly more from decentralization reforms compared to developed countries. These findings underscore the importance of considering all dimensions of the decentralization process when investigating the effects of this reform on any economic, institutional, or social variable. The policy implications are highly relevant, particularly for developing countries: decentralization implemented only through one dimension may render fewer positive fruits in terms of access to services than a multi-dimensional approach. Moreover, learning more about the most beneficial mutually-reinforcing effects across dimensions of decentralization may also help strategically in how the overall decentralization reform is designed.

This dissertation analyzes competition for foundation grants in the nonprofit sector. First, I examine how inter-organization competition and foundation activity in local grants markets affect organization behavior through institutional pressure on (1) firm fundraising expenses, (2) program expense ratios, and (3) revenue diversification. Second, I explore the impacts of nonprofit program expense ratios and fundraising expenses on foundation grantmaking. This analysis focuses on the relative "prices" of donations to competing nonprofit organizations, represented by these expense ratios, and the impact prices have on foundation grant decisions relative to the impact that nonprofit marketing has. Finally, I examine whether greater competition in grants markets increases the importance of program expense ratios and firm marketing behavior for grant selection. Overall, this dissertation contributes to our understanding of organization behavior and foundation influence in grant-seeking markets and competition's role in the distribution of charitable grants.

Using a qualitative multiple case study methodology, this study explores the relationship between government funding and INGO autonomy in three INGOs through resource dependence and tool choice frameworks. Adapting Verhoest, Peters et al.'s (2004) conceptualization of organizational autonomy as the extent of an organization's decision making capacity in matters concerning agency operations and human resource and financial management; this research regards the authors second definition of financial, structural, legal, and interventional constraints not as types of autonomy per se, but as the mechanisms through which INGOs' actual use of their decision making competencies is constrained. The findings in this research suggest that relative to other funding sources, government funding disproportionately impacts INGOs' operational and managerial autonomy. This is largely accomplished through various ex ante and ex post constraints such as, rules and regulations on inputs allocation and use, performance controls and evaluation requirements attached to government funding. This research also finds that the tool of choice used by government to finance INGO activities also steer, direct and influence INGO grantees' decisions thus positioning INGOs to incorporate government policy interests, preferences and priorities. However, INGOs can exercise their autonomy through various strategies ranging from program design, contract negotiation, and participation in advisory groups.

This dissertation contributes to the definition of an analytical framework for the study of optimal jurisdictional size for local service delivery. We argue that the standard economics framework for the analysis of optimal jurisdictional size importantly neglects individual preferences for political accountability. Our theoretical model shows that once we take into account such preferences, the optimal jurisdictional size for the provision of local public goods is smaller than in the standard model. We obtain empirical evidence to support our hypothesis from a sample of 197 countries. Our results show that, in fact, demand for political accountability leads to higher jurisdictional fragmentation both in terms of greater number of jurisdictions and smaller average population per jurisdiction. In addition, a meta-analysis of the empirical contributions to the study of economies of scale in the provision of local services shows that the economies of scale expected from service provision to larger jurisdictional sizes may not be present except for a handful of local services, and limited to relatively small population sizes. The results of the meta-analysis signal moderately increasing to constant returns to scale in the provision of traditional local services. In light of these results, we argue that forced jurisdictional consolidation programs across the world justified by perceptions of excessive jurisdictional fragmentation, or by the expectation of large expenditure savings due to economies of scale may have been, thus, erroneously designed. From a policy perspective, multi-layered institutional frameworks for service delivery (including cooperation and privatization among other options) may allow targeting available efficiency gains more efficiently than consolidation.

This study examined the determinants of public pension fund performance through the lens of agency theory. The study sought to answer the following questions: (1) How much of the fluctuation in the performance of pension plans is due to political interference - either directly from decisions made by legislatures or through the governance structure of the pension boards, after controlling for asset allocation, plan size, and other external factors? (2) Do pension board expertise, education and training, and information disclosure requirements improve the performance of pension plans? (3) Do pension trustees strategically determine the actuarial rate of return (discount rate) in order to reduce contributions in times of fiscal stress for the pension sponsor? Using longitudinal data of pension fund performance over the period 2000 to 2009 and instrumental variables methods to address endogeneity issues, the study found partial support for the agency theory hypotheses. The results indicate that political interference through reduced contributions was the main factor explaining pension performance. There was no direct evidence about the negative impact of politically appointed trustees on pension performance. The impact of these findings for current policy and future research are discussed.

This study looks at the National Citizens’ Technology Forum (NCTF), a modified version of the consensus conference, which took place in March, 2008 in six cities across the U.S. to understand how inclusive these methods of public participation are in practice. The study focuses on two of these sites. Inclusion of participants was defined in terms of presence, voice and being heard. Transcripts of the audio-visual recordings of the proceedings were the main data of analysis. By focusing on the talk within these deliberative forums, the study looked at how the rules of engagement and status (ascribed and achieved) differences between participants can affect inclusion. The analysis did not reveal any substantial effects of ascribed characteristics on deliberation. Facilitation and the presence of expertise among the participants were found to effect inclusion and equality among participants. These findings suggest that organizers and facilitators of deliberative exercises have to be reflexive of their role as well as aware of the group dynamics. The results also address the larger questions within science and technology policy like the role of expertise and the public in decision making, the institutional design of participatory exercises, and their relation to the political culture and the policy process.

This dissertation examines the role of public investments in inducing small firms to develop risky, early-stage technologies. It contributes to expanding our understanding of the consequences of research, innovation, and entrepreneurship policies and programs by investigating in more depth the effect of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program on the innovation effort, ability to attract external capital, and other metrics of post-entry performance of small business start-ups using a new sample and estimation approach. This study integrated the Kauffman Firm Survey from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation with the SBIR recipient dataset from the U.S. Small Business Administration and used advances in the micro-econometrics of program evaluation to empirically construct the counterfactual outcomes of SBIR recipients. We found empirical evidence of the input additionality effect of the SBIR program. The treatment effects analyses also found a significant positive effect of SBIR on innovation propensity and employment. However, it appears that public co-financing of commercial R&D has crowded-out privately financed R&D of small business start-ups in the United States. A dollar of SBIR subsidy decreased firm-financed R&D by about $0.16. Contrary to prior SBIR studies, we did not find any significant “halo effect” or “certification effect” of receiving an SBIR award on attracting external capital. What we discovered is a different certification effect of the SBIR program: SBIR grantees are more likely to attract external patents. This finding confirms that innovation requires a portfolio of internal and external knowledge assets as theorized by David Teece and his colleagues.

This dissertation offers insight into the organizational lives of small and new not-for-profits. The first essay used three different estimation strategies to model the role of revenue type in the growth in young and small not-for-profits. We find that increases in the percentage of a not-for-profit’s revenue portfolio going to dues, indirect support, or non-mission income will suppress growth and that there is no “optimal” model across subsectors. The second essay uses over twenty years of panel data to predict which factors indicate the impending recovery of a financially vulnerable small and young nonprofit. Support for hypotheses based in the literature is mixed, but the key insight is that nonprofits need to save if they want to get healthy: bringing in revenues is not enough. Finally, the third essay uses a qualitative approach on young and new mental health not-for-profits in the state of New York. Using comparative case studies, this study analyzes the internal and external factors surrounding the demise of small and young mental health nonprofits. This study finds support for several of the potential causes of nonprofit demise in a newly proposed typology.

This dissertation explores whether families of incarcerated fathers are more likely to experience food insecurity as a result of the conviction of the father. More specifically, I test whether food insecurity explains some of the devastating consequences of paternal incarceration on mothers and children. Because children of incarcerated fathers are at higher risk of following their fathers’ footsteps, this cycle of incarceration can be self-perpetuating. I try to determine how policy can be used to break this cycle. This dissertation examines the role of food insecurity in explaining the negative impact of paternal incarceration on the well-being of mothers and children. The United States has experienced a huge prison boom over the last 40 years. A growing proportion of the incarcerated population are parents. Children growing up with one or both parents missing tend to have long-lasting disadvantages. Previous studies have attempted to suggest a few mechanisms through which paternal incarceration has negative consequences for families but has not considered the role of food insecurity. I propose a theoretical framework to show that paternal incarceration negatively affects mothers and children through food insecurity. Using a longitudinal study of fragile families, I find that food insecurity explains some of the negative consequences of paternal incarceration on maternal depression. On the other hand, food insecurity plays no role in the effect of paternal incarceration on child behavior problems. The findings also cast doubt on whether paternal incarceration affects child well-being. The implications for policy are two-fold. First, reducing food insecurity would mitigate the negative effects of paternal incarceration on maternal depression. More research is needed in order to understand whether the negative effects of paternal incarceration on maternal well-being can be further mitigated. Second, prison reform would do little to reduce the behavior problems experienced by children of incarcerated fathers. Rather than incarceration, other factors contributing to social disadvantages could explain why children of incarcerated fathers have more behavior problems than other children.

Fiscal stress is an important and recurring problem that states face. Research to date on state fiscal stress involves, predominantly, cross-sectional and case study analyses and does not address the effectiveness of state responses. Many of these studies use different definitions and measures of fiscal stress compounding the difficulty of comparing fiscal stress findings. The present research effort adds to the fiscal stress literature by (1) clarifying the meaning of fiscal stress in the state context, (2) developing a measure of fiscal stress that operationalizes this meaning and is comparable across units, and 3) using this measure analyzes patterns in and the effectiveness of state responses. Fiscal stress is measured using four indexes: budget, cash, long-run, service-level. Eleven financial indicators, calculated using data from state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), are used to create these indexes for all fifty states for the years 2002-2009. Descriptive analysis compares state fiscal stress levels (grouped into low, moderate, and high fiscal stress by cluster analysis) to state economic growth rates, state responses, and institutional factors yielding several findings. First, states do not use an incremental or punctuated equilibrium strategy in responding to fiscal stress; nor do their responses follow the pattern predicted by Cutback Management theory. Second, institutional factors affect both the levels of fiscal stress and state responses to fiscal stress. Regression analysis supports and extends these findings. First, short-term responses of expenditure cuts, tax increases, and rainy day fund use do not affect state fiscal stress levels. Second, these responses have long-term effects on fiscal stress levels. A major implication of this research is that there is very little states can do in the short-term to reduce fiscal stress. However, by balancing expenditures and revenues states can set themselves up to weather the next economic downturn with lower levels of fiscal stress.