This article extrapolates into the next decade the probable changes in state-local relations and emphasizes three central themes: (1) fiscal federalism, (2) localism, and (3) state-local cooperation. The principal argument is that the nature, success, and prognosis of state-local relations for the foreseeable future depend largely on the fiscal health of state and local governments and the fiscal ties between the two sets of governments. Demands for constitutional and statutory autonomy for local governments, levels of satisfaction and discord between state and local governments, and the flexibility and constraints imposed upon the revenue-generating capacity of local governments reflect the larger and more dominant variable of fiscal well-being.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Ann O'M. Bowman and Richard C. Kearney, The Resurgence of the States (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986), pp. 10-22.
2.
2. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (hereinafter ACIR), Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1989 ed. (Washington, DC: ACIR, 1989), p. 13.
3.
3. Data drawn from ACIR, Changing Public Attitudes on Governments and Taxes (Washington, DC: ACIR, 1989).
4.
4. The most important reason for the increase in special districts is the tax and debt limits imposed on local governments since the late 1960s. See Scott Bollens, “Examining the Link between State Policy and the Creation of Local Special Districts,”State and Local Government Review, 18:117-124 (Fall 1986).
5.
5. Data are derived from ACIR, Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1988 ed. (Washington, DC: ACIR, 1988).
6.
idem , City Government Finances in 1977-78 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1979).
7.
7. Steven D. Gold and Martha A. Fabaricius, How States Limit City and County Property Taxes and Spending (Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, 1989).
8.
8. Gold and Fabaricius define full disclosure as a “special notification to taxpayers of proposed tax increases through advertisements and/or the mail as well as special public hearings.” Ibid., p. 5.
9.
9. Revenue rollbacks require that the property tax rate be reduced when property is revalued.
10.
10. An assessment limit restricts the percentage increase of the assessed valuation of existing property.
11.
See also John Mikesell and John Bowman, Local government Tax Authority and Use (Washington, DC: National League of Cities, 1987), pp. 73-88.
12.
12. ACIR, Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1989 ed., pp. 58-59.
13.
13. Data are drawn from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Government Finances 1986-87 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1988).
14.
see also Douglas Peterson, State Aid to Cities and Towns (Washington, DC: National League of Cities, 1988).
15.
15. Gold and Erickson, State Aid to Local Governments in the 1980s, p. 12.
16.
See America's Ailing Cities (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), pp. 276-281.
17.
17. Stephen Farber, “Federalism and State-Local Relations,” in A Decade of Devolution, ed. Blaine Liner (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1989), chap. 10.
18.
Steven Craig and Robert Inman, “Education, Welfare, and the `New' Federalism,” in Studies in State and Local Public Finance, ed. Harvey Rosen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), chap. 7.
19.
19. See Michael A. Pagano, “Urban Infrastructure and City Budgeting,” in The Future of National Urban Policy, ed. Marshall Kaplan and Franklin James (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990).
20.
20. See Sarah F. Liebschutz, ed., Targeting by the States, vol. 19, Publius: The Journal of Federalism (Spring 1989).
21.
21. ACIR, The Question of State Government Capability (Washington, DC: ACIR, 1985), p. 292.
22.
22. Michael E. Libonati, “Intergovernmental Relations in State Constitutional Law: A Historical Overview,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 496:116 (Mar. 1988).
23.
23. David Berman and Lawrence Martin claim, “State-local relations, traditionally a neglected area of research, have become of increasing interest recently in part because of demands for more local control.”“State-Local Relations,”Public Administration Review, 48:637 (Mar.-Apr. 1988).
25. See Jeffrey M. Stonecash, “Fiscal Centralization in the American States,”Public Budgeting & Finance, 8:81-89 (Winter 1988).
26.
26. ACIR, Measuring Local Discretionary Authority (Washington, DC: ACIR, 1981).
27.
27. Richard Briffault, “State-Local Relations and Constitutional Law,”Intergovernmental Perspective, 13:14 (Summer-Fall 1987).
28.
28. Richard Briffault, “Localism in State Constitutional Law,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 496:126-127 (Mar. 1988).
29.
ACIR , State Mandating of Local Expenditures (Washington, DC: ACIR, 1978).
30.
30. See Steven D. Gold, Reforming State-Local Relations (Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, 1989), chap. 10.
31.
31. Only Alaska, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wyoming do not have a cost-estimation procedure. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Legislative Mandates (Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 1988), app. 1.
32.
32. For example, California is not required to reimburse local governments for state mandates that apply to both the private and the public sectors. Florida does not enforce its reimbursement statute because “the legislature enacting [the law] in 1978 could not bind succeeding legislatures.” Ibid., p. 39.
33.
33. Ibid.
34.
34. John DeGrove and Barbara Brumback, “State-Local Partnership,” in Urban Policy in a Changing Federal System, ed. Charles R. Warren (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1984), p. 218.
35.
35. See William L. Waugh, Jr., “States, Counties, and the Questions of Trust and Capacity,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 18:189-198 (Winter 1988).
36.
36. Steven Gold, “Time for a Change in State-Local Relations,”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6:103 (Fall 1986).
37.
37. David B. Walker, “The State-Local Connection,”National Civic Review73:63 (Feb. 1984).
38.
See also idem, “State-City Connections,”State Government, 58(4):124-129 (1986).
39.
idem , State-Local Highway Consultation and Cooperation: The Perspectives of State Legislators (Washington, DC: ACIR, 1988); unpublished data from Norman Walzer, Western Illinois University, on county engineers' and state highway officials' views.
40.
40. ACIR, Devolution of Federal Aid Highway Programs: Cases in State-Local Relations and Issues in State Law (Washington, DC: ACIR, 1988), p. 43.
41.
41. Ibid.
42.
42. Daniel J. Elazar, Building Cities in America (Lanham, MD: Hamilton Press, 1987), p. 232.
