Several studies have been undertaken to explain state aid to local governments and to ascertain if state aid is "responsive" to cities and urban problems. Most scholars have interpreted their findings with reference to the state role in the federal system. This study examines state aid to distressed communities (a category of aid programs created by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations). We find that, independent of other factors, local need shapes the allocation of these programs. This evidence adds to other evidence suggesting that the states are responsive to urban distress.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] (1977) The States and Intergovernmental Aids. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] (1979) The States and Distressed Communities. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] (1980) The State of State-Local Revenue Sharing. Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] (1983) The States and Distressed Communities: State Programs to Aid Distressed Communities. Washington, DC: Author.
5.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] (1985a) The Question of State Government Capability. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] (1985b) 1982 Tax Capacity of the Fifty States. Washington, DC: Author.
7.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] (1985c) The States and Distressed Communities: The Final Report. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
CAMPBELL, A. [ed.] (1970) The States and the Urban Crisis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.
City & State (1985) "How many work where?"September 20.
10.
COHEN, N. (1982) "Community assistance: the states' challenge."Intergovernmental Perspective8 (Summer): 14-21.
11.
Comptroller General of the United States (1983) Changing Medicaid Formula Can Improve Distribution of Funds to States. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
12.
COTTER, C. (1984) Party Organizations in American Politics. New York: Praeger.
13.
DYE, T. and T. HURLEY (1978) "The responsiveness of federal and state governments to urban problems."J. of Politics40 (February): 196-207.
14.
FENSTERMAN, J. , S. SZANISZLO, and C. STENBERG (1983) "Coping with cutbacks: states, localities `made do' in 1982."Intergovernmental Perspective8 (Winter): 30-45.
15.
GRUMM, J. (1970) "Structural determinants of legislative output," pp. 429-459 in A. Kornberg and L. Musolf (eds.) Legislatures in Developmental Perspective. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.
16.
HAWKINS, R. (1982) American Federalism: A New Partnership for the Republic. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
17.
HOFFERBERT, R. (1972) "State and community policy studies: a review of comparative input-output studies," pp. 3-72 in Political Science Annual 1972. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
18.
JORESKOG, K. and D. SORBOM (1983) Lisrel User's Guide. Chicago: National Educational Resources.
19.
KLINGMAN, D. and W. LAMMERS (1984) "The `general policy liberalism' factor in American state politics."Amer. J. of Pol. Sci.28 (August): 598-610.
20.
LeMAY, M. (1972) "The states and urban areas: a comparative assessment."National Civic Rev.61 (December): 1-7.
21.
LeMAY, M. (1973) "Expenditure and non-expenditure measures of state urban policy output: a research note."Amer. Politics Q.I (October): 511-528.
22.
MacMANUS, S. (1983) "State government: the overseer of municipal finance," pp. 145-181 in A. Sbragia (ed.) The Municipal Money Chase: The Politics of Local Government Finance. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23.
MORGAN, D. and R. ENGLAND (1984) "States aid to cities: a casual inquiry."Publius14 (Spring): 67-82.
24.
NAISBITT, J. (1982) Megatrends. New York: Warner.
25.
National Governors' Association (1979) Bypassing the States: Wrong Turn for Urban Aid. Washington, DC: Author.
26.
PELISSERO, J. (1983) "How well do states respond to city needs?" presented at the meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April.
27.
RIKER, W. (1964) Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Brown.
28.
SHARKANSKY, I. (1972) The Maligned States. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Small Business Administration (1984) State Activities in Venture Capital, Early-State Financing, and Secondary Markets. Washington, DC: Author.
30.
SOMMER, J. (1982) "The post-interventionist city."Cato2 (Fall): 501-533.
31.
STEIN, R. (1982) "The targeting of state aid: a comparison of grant delivery systems."Urban Interest3 (Special Issue): 47-59.
32.
STEPHENS, G. and G. OLSON (1979) Pass through Federal Aid and Interlevel Finance in the American Federal System 1957 to 1977. Kansas City: Univ. of Missouri Press.
33.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983) State Government Finances in 1982. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
34.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1984) County and City Data Book (United States) 1983. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research.
35.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1984) The President's National Urban Policy Report 1984. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (1983) Technology, Innovation, and Regional Economic Development. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.
37.
WALKER, D. (1980) "The states and the system: changes and choices."Intergovernmental Perspective6 (Fall): 6-12.
38.
WALKER, D. (1981) Toward a Functioning Federalism. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
39.
WILDAVSKY, A. (1981) "Birthday cake federalism." Presented at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, December.
