Categorical programs, considered the backbone of "creative federalism" in the 1960s, are no longer in vogue in the 1980s. The increasing prominence of block grants in our federal grant system merits a closer look at the likely policy consequences following program consolidation. Our longitudinal study of the Community Development Block Grant in two large cities suggests that the increased level of local discretion resulted in less emphasis on the redistributive needs of low-income residents. Moreover, decisions with respect to the block grant inevitably become part of the local political process, and in these two cities, were influenced by mayoral preferences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BANFIELD, E. and J. Q. WILSON (1963) City Politics. New York: Vintage Books.
2.
BROWNING, R. P. , D. R. MARSHALL, and D. H. TABB (1984) Protest Is Not Enough. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
3.
BRUGMANN, B. and G. SLETTELAND [eds.] (1971) The Ultimate Highrise. San Francisco: Bay Guardian.
4.
City of Milwaukee, Community Development Task Force (1979) Funding Allocation Guide for Community Development Block Grant Funds. Milwaukee: Author.
5.
City of Milwaukee, Department of City Development (1977) Toward a Comprehensive Plan: A Preservation Policy for Milwaukee. Milwaukee: Author.
6.
DAHL, R. (1961) Who Governs?New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
7.
DERTHICK, M. (1972) New Towns in Town: Why a Federal Program Failed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
8.
DOMMEL, P. and Associates (1978) Decentralizing Community Development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
9.
DOMMEL, P. and Associates (1980) Targeting Community Development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
10.
DOMMEL, P. and Associates (1982) Decentralizing Urban Policy: Case Studies in Community Development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
11.
General Accounting Office (1977) The Federal Government Should but Doesn't Know the Costs of Administering Its Assistance Programs. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
GOVE, S. and L. MASOTTI [eds.] (1982) After Daley: Chicago Politics in Transition. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
13.
HARTMAN, C. (1974) Yerba Buena: Land Grab and Community Resistance in San Francisco. San Francisco: Glide.
14.
McQUADE, W. (1966) "Urban renewal in Boston," pp. 259-277 in J. Q. Wilson (ed.) Urban Renewal: The Record and the Controversy. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
15.
MOLLENKOPF, J. (1983) The Contested City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
16.
NATHAN, R. , P. DOMMEL, S. LIEBSCHUTZ, and M. MORRIS (1977a) "Monitoring the block grant program for community development."Pol. Sci. Q.92, 2.
17.
NATHAN, R. and Associates (1977b) Block Grants for Community Development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
18.
PECHMAN, J. [ed.] (1982) Setting National Priorities: The 1983 Budget. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19.
PETERSON, P. E. (1981) City Limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
20.
PETERSON, P. E. and K. WONG (1985) "Toward a differentiated theory of federalism: education and housing policy in the 1980s."Research in Urban Policy1: 301-324.
21.
PRESSMAN, J. and A. WILDAVSKY (1973) Implementation. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
22.
SMITH, F. C. (1980) "A special investigative report."Baltimore Sun (July).
23.
STEGER, M. A. (1984) "Group influence versus decision-making rules: an analysis of local CDBG allocational decisions."Urban Affairs Q.19, 3.
24.
WEIDNER, E. W. (1967) "Decision-making in a federal system," pp. 229-256 in A. Wildavsky (ed.) American Federalism in Perspective. Boston: Little, Brown.
25.
WOLFINGER, R. E. (1974) The Politics of Progress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
26.
WONG, K. (1983) "Federalism and public policy implementation." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
