Capacity, Guidance, and the Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

• Published date: 01 January 2015
• Date: 01 January 2015
• Author: Sanya Carley,Eric J. Fisher,Sean Nicholson‐Crotty
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12294

Sanya Carley is associate professor in

the School of Public and Environmental

Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington.

She received her doctorate in public

policy from the University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill. Her research focuses on

electricity policy, energy-based economic

development, and public perceptions of

emerging energy technologies.

E-mail: scarley@indiana.edu

Sean Nicholson-Crotty is associate

professor in the School of Public and

Environmental Affairs at Indiana University

Bloomington. He received his doctorate

from Texas A&M University in 2003. His

research focuses on f‌i scal federalism, the

implementation and management of public

programs, and policy diffusion.

E-mail: seanicho@indiana.edu

Eric J. Fisher received master’s degrees

in public affairs and environmental

science from the School of Public and

Environmental Affairs at Indiana University

Bloomington. His studies focused on

energy policy and markets. He received

a bachelor’s degree in geosciences from

Earlham College.

E-mail: ejfshr@gmail.com

Capacity, Guidance, and the Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 113

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 75, Iss. 1, pp. 113–125. © 2014 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12294.

have found that approximately $90 billion went toward

“clean energy activities” (Aldy 2013, 142).  is f‌i gure

includes approximately $24 billion for transportation

activities such as high-speed rail, mass transit, and

advanced vehicles.  e remaining $66 billion went

toward a variety of renewable energy, energy ef‌f‌i ciency

improvements, energy research and development, smart

grid development and deployment, and workforce

training programs.  e magnitude of public spending

from the Recovery Act is notable: passage of the act

marked the largest federal infusion of f‌i scal resources

into energy-related activities in modern history.

Several early reports have documented Recovery Act

achievements to date. Some funds rescued renewable

energy projects threatened by the f‌i nancial downturn,

and in some cases, funds successfully leveraged f‌i scal

support from private industry for energy projects

(EESI 2010; Hargreaves 2010).  e Recovery Act

was found to produce approximately one new job

per $107,000 in spending, with a multiplier between

The American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act (ARRA or Recovery Act) was passed in

February 2009, two years into one of the

worst economic recessions in U.S. history since the

Great Depression. Over the course of just three years,

from 2009 through 2011, the ARRA was designed to

inject $840 billion into the U.S. economy. Primary

spending areas included education, health care,

unemployment assistance, family services, and energy,

as well as a variety of other categories. A signif‌i cant

portion of the spending under the act went toward tax

expenditures such as the Making Work Pay tax credit

and Alternative Minimum Tax relief.

 e energy sector was one of the primary targets of

the ARRA because it is an industry in which there

are signif‌i cant infrastructure needs, innovation-led

development is possible, and there is the potential for

the United States to gain market share and job growth

in new sectors. Although estimates vary depending

on which programs are included in the count, studies

Capacity, Guidance, and the Implementation of the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Sanya Carley

Sean Nicholson-Crotty

Indiana University

Eric J. Fisher

Abstract: Programs administered by the U.S. Department of Energy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act (ARRA) of 2009 were designed to spur investment in clean energy and jump-start the economy.  ere was

considerable variation, however, in the proportion of obligated funds that states spent during each year. A primary

goal of the ARRA was to infuse as much money as possible into the struggling economy; however, there was signif‌i cant

variation in the success with which states implemented these programs.  is article draws on and extends the literature

on intergovernmental implementation to explain such variation.  e authors argue that jurisdictional capacity and

federal guidance were important determinants of the rate at which states spent ARRA funds and, more important, that

these factors interacted with one another in the implementation process.  is assertion is tested using a mixed-methods

approach that includes a regression analysis of state ARRA spending between 2009 and 2012, as well as an evaluation

of interviews conducted with 46 state agency representatives responsible for spending ARRA energy funds.

Practitioner Points

• Federal guidance and jurisdictional capacity can both inf‌l uence implementation success in intergovernmental

programs.

• States with previous energy policy experience were more prepared to spend American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act energy program funds.

• States with greater jurisdictional capacity were more prepared to spend American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act energy program funds.

• Federal guidance was instrumental in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act implementation, but mat-

tered signif‌i cantly more in those jurisdictions that did not already possess the capacity to implement complex

intergovernmental programming.