Thesis advisor: Stephanie Greene / A Constitutional analysis of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with respect to educational subsidies to religiously-affiliated universities; including a proposed framework for the adjudication of issues involving religion and the government. / Thesis (BS) — Boston College, 2009. / Submitted to: Boston College. Carroll School of Management. / Discipline: Carroll School of Management Honors Program. / Discipline: Business Law.

No description available.

The purpose of study is to research the development of electric vehicle technology in the United States. This study describes the United States public policies towards electric vehicle technology and system of innovation approaches. The government roles with the help of national system of innovation have been also covered in this study. The point of departure was the study of available literature and U.S energy policy acts which illustrates that the break-through in electric vehicles still not only depended on better battery technology and infrastructure for charging stations but also on social, economic and political factors. The important actors involved in the process are both at local and international level are private firms, governmental departments, research and development (R&D) institutes, nongovernment organizations (NGO’s) and environmental organizations etc. The arguments which are put forward in the background of development of such technologies are to reduce dependence on foreign oil and to reduce emissions of harmful gasses.

In the study of government accountability, there have long been arguments about which model is superior. These arguments, which are largely made by those in the performance and political accountability camps, state that their particular model is the best, and indeed only legitimate approach to ensuring accountable government. At the same time, there is growing research in policy tools but little in how accountability models and policy tools are linked in policy design. This study makes use of the context provided by the critical cases of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). With such large sums of money in play at a time of serious economic downturn and mounting federal deficits, government clearly has a responsibility to ensure accountability so that the public can be assured not only that its funds are being spent properly but also more generally, that accountability as well as policy tool choice is in the minds of officials as they formulate, adopt and implement public policy. The intent of this study is to present an argument in two main areas using the critical case studies of TARP and ARRA. First, that no one accountability model fully explains most policy tool choices in TARP or ARRA and that the use of multiple models is superior. Second, that we can link policy tool choices and accountability models in policy design. The standards used to establish what models explain what tool choices are in the models themselves. Each policy is explored individually in a chapter, and the lessons and results of this study are then presented in the final chapter. The data presented in this study indicate that a single-model approach may explain a few, but not most and certainly not all, policy tool choices in TARP and ARRA. Indeed, a multiple model approach proves superior to a single-model approach in all but a few instances. As for the connections between policy tools and accountability models, the data presented in this study show that they were strongly impacted by the policy formulation process itself, specifically the way in which the policy problem was framed and the speed with which it was undertaken.

The purpose of this study is to find out the effect of government spending on capital investments in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 on GDP and employment growth. This research utilized US quarterly data from 2003 QI to 2013 QII. In the first part the research used variables from the Keynes economic model and utilized two-stage least square analysis to assess the effect of government spending on GDP. The results from the regression analysis indicate that an increase of one dollar in government spending increases GDP by 1.569 dollars. The researcher found that the general government spending multiplier was 1.9. The coefficient for government spending in the Recovery Act was 0.383, implying that for every one dollar in government spending, Recovery Act spending on capital investments contributed 0.383 dollars. / Includes bibliography. / Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2014. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

In order to understand how policies are made, analysts need to be able to explain and describe the policy making process. This is a complex task due to the variety and complexity of policy making environments. The difficulty lies in accounting for the multiple actors who come and go, differing preferences, and impending problems and solutions sets which vary by policy environment. Therefore, there is a need to approach the understanding of policy processes from several different theoretical perspectives to aid in evaluating the multifaceted variations which ultimately affect policy making. An improved description of processes can lead to more accurate predictions of possible future policies, improved advocacy efforts, and enhanced problem solving. Two policy process frameworks, the Multiple Stream Framework (MSF) and the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, were applied to a recent significant change in science policy. An understanding is developed to explain how federal science funding survived within the highly controversial and costly American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The volatile and unpredictable nature of science policy lends itself well to the MSF, while the more static IAD is less useful to explain how and why the funds stayed in the bill. This is telling about the scope and adaptability of the two frameworks, where each may be better suited for different policy environments. The MSF being more appropriate for unstable and capricious policy issues and the IAD better matched for policy issues which have a somewhat more stable environment.