Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic represented a short-term shift in US social policy. Under the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the federal government prioritised households by raising the floor for child support and unemployment benefits, and restoring fiscal federalism by providing increased funds to state and local governments. Our 2021 nationwide survey finds local governments with more citizen participation and Black Lives Matter protests plan to prioritise social equity investments, while those with more Trump voters plan to prioritise physical infrastructure with their ARPA funds. COVID-19 led to new policy approaches that expand government investment. While the federal changes for households (expanded unemployment insurance and child tax credits) ended in 2021, the increased aid to state and local governments continues. These have the potential to help reshape citizen expectations and repair federal–state–local relations.
Fiscal stress among local governments in the US has become a key concern since the 2008 Recession. Fiscal stress is fueled by structural pressures from demography, economy, and state policy. How do these pressures shape perceptions of fiscal stress? We conducted a national survey in 2017 of 2,064 US local governments. Our regression models measure the factors that differentiate perceptions of fiscal stress among local government leaders. We find governments with professional managers perceive higher stress. These perceptual measures reflect not only higher objective financial measures, such as debt per capita, but also structural factors like aging infrastructure, unemployment, education levels, and state policy. Professional managers take a broader view of fiscal stress – not just short-term financial concerns, but longer-term structural shifts in demography, economy, and state policy. Greater autonomy allows US local governments to have a more balanced view on fiscal stress and, by practicing pragmatic municipalism, to hold back the tides of austerity.
AbstractThis article updates cutback management theory and challenges austerity urbanism theory by showing that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism—protecting services with a balanced response to fiscal stress. Using a 2017 national survey of 2,341 U.S. municipalities and counties, the authors identify four responses—no specific action, cuts, revenue supplements, and deferrals. Structural equation models show that cuts are higher in places with older infrastructure and more unemployment but not in places with more poverty. Supplemental responses are higher in places with professional management and higher education. Deferrals are higher in places with more debt but lower in places with older infrastructure. Localities with less fiscal stress take no specific action. Most governments combine cuts, supplements, and deferrals; this balanced response is associated with more fiscal stress, more citizen engagement, and higher levels of unionization. These results show that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism, not austerity urbanism, when responding to fiscal stress.
AbstractIntermunicipal cooperation is the most prevalent alternative service delivery method for US local governments. While aspirations for budgetary savings are one motivating factor, increased service quality and regional coordination are also important goals. We use an original 2013 survey of local governments in New York State to assess the level of service sharing and outcomes. We match our survey with 20 years (1996–2016) of service-level costs data to explore the relationships between sharing and costs across 12 common local government services. We contribute to the literature by providing the first multivariate assessment of the effect of cooperation on costs in the United States, and we contribute theoretical insights on the objectives and type of cooperation to explain differences in the effects of cooperation on costs across a variety of services. Our multivariate time series regressions find that service sharing leads to cost reductions in solid waste management, roads and highways, police, library, and sewer services; no difference in costs for economic development, ambulance/EMS, fire, water, and youth recreation; and higher costs in elder services, and planning and zoning. These differences are explained by whether services have characteristics such as asset specificity and the ability to achieve economies of scale on the one hand, or if sharing leads to greater administrative intensity or promotes other objectives such as quality and regional coordination outcomes on the other hand. We also analyze the effect of sharing on service costs over time, and find solid waste, roads and highways, police, and library are the only services where costs show a continued downward trend. These results show the limited role for economies of scale, even in asset specific services. Because cost savings are elusive, public sector reformers should be careful not to assume cost savings from sharing. The theoretical foundations for service sharing extend beyond economies of scale and transaction costs. Scholars should give more attention to organizational form and the broader goals of sharing.
AbstractIn this article, we examine the connections between resiliency and sustainability by asking: Can disaster planning lead to more sustainability actions? In a survey we conducted of 1,899 cities, towns, and counties across the United States in 2015, we found that disaster plans are three times more common than sustainability plans. Our regression models find both types of plans lead to sustainability action as does regional collaboration across the rural‐urban interface. However, we find that hazard mitigation planning may be done without including sustainability staff, citizens, and other officials. After controlling for motivations, capacity, and cooperation, we find that rural communities are more likely to have sustainability plans than suburbs, though their level of sustainability action is lower due to capacity constraints. Our models of multilevel governance find local motivations balance sustainability's concept of environmental protection, economic development, and social equity—and are more important drivers of action than grassroots or higher‐level government funding and policy. This bodes well in a context where federal government leadership on sustainability is absent.
AbstractFiscal federalism argues local governments compete to provide optimal tax-service bundles as responsible public stewards. In contrast, Leviathan theories argue tax and expenditure limitations (TELs) are necessary to make local governments fiscally responsible. We analyze local taxing behavior in New York State, which implemented a levy limit in 2012 that allows legislative overrides with 60 percent vote of the local governing board. Our 2017 survey of all general-purpose local governments measured fiscal stress, service responses, and local political attitudes and found 38 percent of municipalities voted to override. Logistic regressions show local governments that have more fiscal stress, weaker property tax bases, higher need, and higher employee benefit costs are more likely to override. These findings support fiscal federalism, as local governments that override are pushing back against state policy in order to respond to local needs. TELs introduce unnecessary rigidity and run counter to the precepts of fiscal federalism.
Inter-municipal cooperation is an important public service delivery reform, whose drivers move beyond simple concerns with costs and economic efficiency, to policy issues related to governance structure and spatial context. We conduct a meta-regression analysis based on the existing multivariate empirical literature to explore what factors explain divergence in results in the existing empirical studies. We find strong evidence that fiscal constraints, spatial, and organizational factors are significant drivers of cooperation. Our meta regressions do not yield results to explain divergence in results on community wealth, economies of scale or racial homogeneity. More studies on these factors are needed to understand how these factors might affect cooperation. Future theoretical and empirical research should give more attention to spatial and organizational factors to develop a better understanding of factors driving cooperation and how they differ across local government structures and regions.
Inter-municipal cooperation is an important public service delivery reform, whose drivers move beyond simple concerns with costs and economic efficiency, to policy issues related to governance structure and spatial context. We conduct a meta-regression analysis based on the existing multivariate empirical literature to explore what factors explain divergence in results in the existing empirical studies. We find strong evidence that fiscal constraints, spatial, and organizational factors are significant drivers of cooperation. Our meta regressions do not yield results to explain divergence in results on community wealth, economies of scale or racial homogeneity. More studies on these factors are needed to understand how these factors might affect cooperation. Future theoretical and empirical research should give more attention to spatial and organizational factors to develop a better understanding of factors driving cooperation and how they differ across local government structures and regions.
Austerity and fiscal crisis make the search for cost saving reforms in local government more critical. While cost savings from privatization have frequently proven ephemeral, inter-municipal cooperation has been a relatively understudied reform. We analyze the literature on cost savings under cooperation and find savings are dependent on (1) the cost structure of public services, particularly those related to scale and density economies and externalities, (2) the structure of local government (size, metropolitan location, powers granted by the nation or regional state), and 3) the governance framework at the local/regional scale where cooperation varies from informal to formal. European studies give more emphasis to cost savings, while US studies focus on coordination concerns arising from the higher degree of devolution in the US local government system.
Local government scholars are giving increasing attention to market solutions to urban service delivery. Intermunicipal contracting and privatization are two market approaches to reaching economies of scale. Using national data on over one thousand municipalities from across the United States for the 1992–2007 period, we explore the differences between intermunicipal contracting and privatization and assess how the use of these market approaches relates to efficiency, scale, and public engagement factors. Using probit models for each of four survey years (1992, 1997, 2002, 2007), we find these market solutions are only partial responses to the problem of regional coordination and exhibit important differences with respect to place, management, and political concerns. These market solutions exhibit limited efficiency, equity, and voice benefits.
AbstractIn the Netherlands, the USA and Australia, public funding has promoted parental choice by introducing a voucher scheme for child care, where parents are free to choose the provider. The policy experiments and the outcomes in these three countries provide useful information about the consequences of introducing a voucher scheme in the child care market. We show the voucher system can be effective in increasing demand, but there can be uneven supply responses. The structure of the voucher income scheme and quality controls affect the nature of the supply response. We argue that voucher schemes must take into account the complex nature of the child care market and the substitutability among free public care, private market care and unpaid household care. To secure quality and access, government also must play a coordinating role that vouchers alone cannot supply.
