The Politics of Denying Aid: An Analysis of Disaster Declaration Turndowns
The Politics of Denying Aid: An Analysis of Disaster Declaration Turndowns
复制标题
拒绝援助的政治：对灾难声明拒绝的分析
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Gasper
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Gasper
联邦救灾援助为受灾者提供了资源，并为州长和总统提供了潜在的选票，但拒绝援助对有关各方来说尤其痛苦。本文探讨了政治因素是否有助于哪些地区被拒绝联邦灾害援助。通过分析1992年至2005年的县级数据，我发现政治因素确实会影响总统拒绝援助的决定，但其中一些因素只存在于总统选举期间。访问助理教授，5032福布斯大街1070号，卡塔尔办事处，卡内基梅隆大学，匹兹堡，宾夕法尼亚州，15289。http：//www.andrew.cmu.edu/andregasper，gasper@andrew.cmu.edu，（862）438-5841。自然灾害给政治领导人提供了一个舞台，以表明他们对公民苦难和需要的关切。这些灾害的受害者往往面临着他们从未经历过的困难，并期待他们选出的官员提供帮助。省长和总统可以将资源转用于受影响的人，但这些官员也负责高效率和高效力的治理。随着恶劣天气和灾害声明越来越普遍，州、联邦和州预算越来越紧张，官员们面临的选择谁接受或不接受援助变得更加困难。本文提出了一个县一级的分析，哪些地区被拒绝了总统的灾难声明。政治民间智慧和先前的学术研究都认为，政治和灾难宣言是交织在一起的。联邦紧急事务管理局前局长詹姆斯·李·维特在1996年告诉国会，“灾难是非常政治性的事件。”（引自Sobel and Leeson 2006）自然灾害为官员提供了一个机会，让他们展示自己在压力时期的领导能力（Boin，'t哈特，Stern，and Sundelius 2005; Birkland 2007）。公民不会问政府是否应该发挥作用，但这些事件被视为公共问题，需要公共干预和强有力的领导（施耐德2011）。政府间关系以及地方、州和联邦官员之间的互动是成功制定灾后政策的关键（Rubin and Barbee，1985）。其他学术研究表明，灾难宣言可以对总统和州长都有利（Gasper and Reeves 2011）。一些研究发现，总统在提供援助时对选举问题很敏感（Reeves 2011;加勒特和Sobel 2003）。特别是，加勒特和索贝尔（2003年）发现，一半的救灾是出于政治动机，而不是出于需要。对民选官员来说，否认或拒绝灾难申报可能是非常令人担忧的。虽然给予联邦资金可以看出，
Federal disaster aid provides resources to affected victims and potential votes for both governors and presidents, but the denial of aid can especially painful for all parties involved. This paper examines whether political factors contribute to which areas are denied federal disaster aid. Analyzing county-level data from 1992 through 2005, I find that political factors do shade a president’s decision to deny aid, but that some of these factors are only present during presidential elections years. ∗Visiting Assistant Professor, 5032 Forbes Ave # 1070, Qatar Office, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15289. http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/∼gasper, gasper@andrew.cmu.edu, (862) 438-5841. Natural disasters give political leaders a stage to show their concerns for citizens’ suffering and needs. Victims of these disasters often are faced with hardship that they have never experienced before and look to their elected officials for help. Governors and the President are in a position to redirect resources to those affected, but those officials are also responsible for efficient and effective governance. As severe weather and disaster declarations become more common and state and federal and state budgets become tighter, the choice officials face as to who does or does not receive aid becomes more difficult. This paper presents an county-level analysis of which areas are denied a presidential disaster declaration. Both political folk-wisdom and previous academic studies contend that politics and disaster declarations are intertwined. James Lee Witt, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, told Congress in 1996 that “disasters are very political events.” (quoted in Sobel and Leeson 2006) Natural disasters offer an opportunity for officials to demonstrate their ability to lead during stressful times (Boin, ’t Hart, Stern, and Sundelius 2005; Birkland 2007). Citizens don’t ask whether governments should play a role, but these events are seen as public problems requiring public intervention and strong leadership (Schneider 2011). Intergovernmental relations and interactions between local, state, and federal officials are key to successful post-disaster policy (Rubin and Barbee 1985). Other scholarly work has shown that disaster declarations can be electorally beneficial to both presidents and governors (Gasper and Reeves 2011). Some studies have found that presidents are sensitive to electoral concerns when granting aid (Reeves 2011; Garrett and Sobel 2003). In particular, Garrett and Sobel (2003) finds that half of all disaster relief is motivated politically rather than by need. Disaster declarations denials, or turndowns, may be exceptionally worrisome for elected officials. While granting federal monies can be seen