Abstract
Environmental agencies provide a variety of regulatory, consulting, analysis, and other services that are typically funded by a mix of mechanisms including taxes, fees, contributions, and earmarked streams. Public deliberation in this area mostly attends to the levels of funding of these services, with inadequate attention to the relationship between means and funding adequacy, or between means and agency performance.The characteristic business models of such agencies provide useful guidance regarding appropriate funding mechanisms. In particular, five different such models are commonly found, each with strong analogies to other familiar kinds of enterprise: (i) Agriculture: the Wildlife Ranch; (ii) Habitat; (iii) Maintenance: the Park; (iv) Consulting, education, and permits: the Think Tank; (v) Risk Spreading: Insurance; and (vi) Enforcement: The Police. Each of these models has strong although not usually decisive implications for the type of funding mechanism best suited to it. Budget analysis and internal accounting that incorporates these models would improve agencies' practice and their claims on appropriate funding. The analysis uses the California Department of Fish and Game as an example.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call