Carl W. Stenberg

The Future of Local Government Will Current Stresses Bring Major, Permanent Changes?

The Great Recession’s damaging effects on the finances of cities and counties have led some observers to predict dramatic, widespread, and enduring changes to local government in response to fiscal pressure. However, the history of change in local government suggests otherwise, as does the experience of individual cities and counties that have confronted fiscal duress in the past. The authors of this article suggest that financial problems will not overwhelm the balance among an array of competing pressures that already confronted local governments long before the recession. Although some cities and counties will respond to the downturn with major, permanent changes, most will not. For local governments as a whole, equilibrium among the host of tensions they face will continue to resist dramatic moves and favor only gradual change.

Revenue Sharing and Governmental Reform

Even though the major purposes of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 were to provide financial relief, restore intergovernmental fiscal balance, and decen tralize decision making, general revenue sharing is far from neutral with respect to other fiscal, structural and functional reforms. Some elements of the program stimulate improve ments at the local and regional levels, while others support the jurisdictional status quo. There have been positive effects on citizen participation in the budgetary process, the equalization of fiscal disparities, and interlocal cooperation. The program has been less successful in encouraging more vigorous state revenue-raising efforts and in targeting funds to local governments having the greatest needs. It has often worked at cross-purposes with regional planning and review processes, as well as with organizations responsible for their conduct. The pending renewal of general revenue sharing will open a new chapter in the debate over governmental reform. Exclusion of limited purpose jurisdictions and removal of the 20 percent floor and 145 percent ceiling on local entitlements will likely receive particular attention as ways of providing more assistance to larger counties and municipalities. Yet, differences among the reformers them selves, probable political support for continuation of the program without basic changes, and philosophical resistance to attaching strings suggest that closer ties between general revenue sharing and government reform will be difficult to develop.

Federalism and the Academic Community: A Brief Survey

No general consensus exists concerning the status of American State and local government and intergovernmental relations as fields within the discipline of political science. Any attempt to make such an evaluation by gauging the attention given to these subjects in colleges and universities should distinguish between the two basic roles of American higher educational institutions—research and teaching. Some observers have noted that in recent years political scientists have become increasingly interested in conducting research in American State and local government. As late as 1963, however, a large number of the members of the American Political Science Association responding to a questionnaire survey of trends in their discipline indicated that State and local government were areas in which the least significant work was being done. Yet, five years later, in a symposium on the advance of political science as a discipline, it was contended that: State and local politics as a field of political science is no longer a ‘lost world’ or the site of ‘Dullsville.’ Rather than being the laggard of the discipline that some political scientists perceive it to be, the study of state and local politics has reentered the mainstream of political research. Much of the work in political science which has influenced the drift of the profession has been within its domain.

Fragmented Structures and Blurred Boundaries: Strategies for Regional Governance

Among the enduring topics of debate among reformers, public officials, and civic groups have been the fragmented structure of local government and blurred boundaries in relationships among local units as well as between localities and their state government. Critics have pointed to the excessive number of small jurisdictions performing a limited range of duties, costly duplication of functional responsibilities, parochial nature of interlocal relationships, and time and expertise limitations of part-time elected officials. Because of small size and antiquated governing and administrative structures, many communities are unable to tackle complex and costly problems that spill across local boundary lines and require timely collective remedial actions. As a result, tensions have grown between special and general-purpose units, and disparities have widened between rich and poor jurisdictions Supporters have argued the need for local accessibility, autonomy, and control, and for placing democratic values above technocratic efficiency and effectiveness. While local structure may not meet ideal standards, in most places it works satisfactorily in delivering services demanded by the public at “prices” (i.e., taxes and fees) citizens are willing to pay. Part-time elected officials, rather than professional politicians, are appropriate leaders of “grassroots” governments because they are close to both the problems and the public.

THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BALANCING ACT: RECONCILING EXPECTATIONS FOR A HYBRID BLOCK GRANT

Community development was one of the first block grant programs, a “hybrid” which retained categorical features and constraints. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) has proven to be resilient and popular with local officials. It has been reauthorized by Congress a number of times over the past three decades, and is among the 15 largest federal grant-in-aid programs. In recent years, the Bush administration, Government Accountability Office, and others have called for major changes in the program, including funding formula, program priorities, performance reporting, and agency location. This paper describes the general characteristics of block grants, the dynamics of the block grant “balancing act,” and lessons from experience. In this context, the varying expectations of CDBG stakeholders and reformers are identified and implications for policy-makers are discussed. Options for the future design and direction of the program are offered.