Ann O'M. Bowman
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Ann O'M. Bowman has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Bryan M. Parsons
University of Tennessee at Martin
1 shared publication - David M. Konisky
University of Missouri
1 shared publication Neal D. Woods
University of South Carolina
1 shared publication- Neal D. Woods
University of South Carolina
1 shared publication Richard C. Kearney
North Carolina State University
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 21 November 2012
- Published by Wiley in Public Administration Review
- Vol. 73 (1) , 63-73
Making Connections: Performance Regimes and Extreme Events
Local officials in the emergency management field have reached out and increased their connections with other agencies and organizations during the past several years. Collaborative networks have been created in an effort to address the complexities and uncertainties surrounding extreme events. But has this collaboration really taken root? In this article, the authors find that although a collaborative ethos has penetrated local emergency management, it is neither deep nor uniform. Data from a survey of emergency managers in North Carolina counties show that maintaining a functional network—a performance regime in which participants develop consistent management practices and rely on each other for the generation of new ideas—is a difficult task. The explanation for the variation found across the counties largely involves capacity and vulnerability.
- 21 November 2012
- Published by Wiley in Public Administration Review
- Vol. 73 (1) , 63-73
Making Connections: Performance Regimes and Extreme Events
Local officials in the emergency management field have reached out and increased their connections with other agencies and organizations during the past several years. Collaborative networks have been created in an effort to address the complexities and uncertainties surrounding extreme events. But has this collaboration really taken root? In this article, the authors find that although a collaborative ethos has penetrated local emergency management, it is neither deep nor uniform. Data from a survey of emergency managers in North Carolina counties show that maintaining a functional network—a performance regime in which participants develop consistent management practices and rely on each other for the generation of new ideas—is a difficult task. The explanation for the variation found across the counties largely involves capacity and vulnerability.
- 2 March 2011
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Publius: The Journal of Federalism
- Vol. 41 (4) , 563-585
Second-Order Devolution: Data and Doubt
In this article, we explore changes in state–local relations. Our interest is the degree to which states have devolved power and authority to their localities … or not. From our empirical tests, we conclude that although centralization was the dominant trend from the mid-1950s until the mid-1980s, the pattern since then has been somewhat uneven and variable across states. A survey of city managers supports a finding of a loss of local power at the hands of the states, but a survey of legislators offers an alternative perspective. We conclude with a discussion of the meaning and implications of state centralization and suggestions about how the concept could be captured more comprehensively.
- 2 March 2011
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Publius: The Journal of Federalism
- Vol. 41 (4) , 563-585
Second-Order Devolution: Data and Doubt
In this article, we explore changes in state–local relations. Our interest is the degree to which states have devolved power and authority to their localities … or not. From our empirical tests, we conclude that although centralization was the dominant trend from the mid-1950s until the mid-1980s, the pattern since then has been somewhat uneven and variable across states. A survey of city managers supports a finding of a loss of local power at the hands of the states, but a survey of legislators offers an alternative perspective. We conclude with a discussion of the meaning and implications of state centralization and suggestions about how the concept could be captured more comprehensively.
- 15 July 2010
- Published by Wiley in Social Science Quarterly
- Vol. 91 (3) , 669-688
Expanding the Scope of Conflict: Interest Groups and Interstate Compacts*
- 15 July 2010
- Published by Wiley in Social Science Quarterly
- Vol. 91 (3) , 669-688
Expanding the Scope of Conflict: Interest Groups and Interstate Compacts*
- 30 July 2008
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Publius: The Journal of Federalism
- Vol. 39 (1) , 95-116
You Get What You Pay For: Environmental Policy and Public Health
In this article, we examine the cumulative impact of state environmental protection policies and environmental quality on the health of state residents in the United States. Using a series of path analytic models, we simultaneously analyze the effect of state environmental policies on environmental pollution and health outcomes. Our results indicate that states with stronger environmental programs have lower levels of pollution and better public health. These results are robust across multiple measures and alternative model specifications. We also find some evidence that states that assume authority to implement federal environmental programs have worse health outcomes. Our findings suggest that overall levels of public health may be affected by state choices with respect to environmental policies and highlight the importance of assessing programmatic consequences across policy areas.
- 30 July 2008
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Publius: The Journal of Federalism
- Vol. 39 (1) , 95-116
You Get What You Pay For: Environmental Policy and Public Health
In this article, we examine the cumulative impact of state environmental protection policies and environmental quality on the health of state residents in the United States. Using a series of path analytic models, we simultaneously analyze the effect of state environmental policies on environmental pollution and health outcomes. Our results indicate that states with stronger environmental programs have lower levels of pollution and better public health. These results are robust across multiple measures and alternative model specifications. We also find some evidence that states that assume authority to implement federal environmental programs have worse health outcomes. Our findings suggest that overall levels of public health may be affected by state choices with respect to environmental policies and highlight the importance of assessing programmatic consequences across policy areas.