The purpose of this study is to compare expenditure patterns of central-city, county, and suburban-city governments in metropolitan areas and to explore service-and-expenditure interactions among these local governments. An analysis of expenditures of local governments in 52 of the largest metropolitan areas indicates that the determinants of expenditures by central-city, county, and suburban-city governments are different and that some degree of service-and-expenditure interactions among these governments exists. For example, in solid-waste and police policy areas, local governments spend more if their neighboring governments spend more, whereas in welfare policy areas, they spend less if their neighboring governments spend more.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) . 1978. State mandating of local expenditures. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
2.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) . 1981. Measuring local discretionary authority. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
3.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) . 1992. Significant features of fiscal federalism. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
4.
Baker, K.1977. County government expenditure policy: An analysis of change relationships. State and Local Government Review9 (2): 44-48.
5.
Banfield, E. , and J. Q. Wilson. 1963. City politics. New York: Vintage.
6.
Benton, E. , and P. Rigos. 1985. Patterns of metropolitan service dominance: Central city and central county service roles compared. Urban Affairs Quarterly20 (3): 285-302.
7.
Clark, T.1968. Community structure, decision-making, budget expenditures, and urban renewal in 51 American communities. American Sociological Review33 (4): 576-593.
8.
Clark, T. , and L. Ferguson. 1983. City money. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
9.
Duncombe, S. , W. Duncombe, and R. Kinney. 1992. Factors influencing the politics and process of county government budgeting. State and Local Government Review24 (1): 19-27.
10.
Dye, T.1966. Politics, economics, and the public policy. Chicago: Rand McNally.
11.
Dye, T. , and J. Garcia. 1978. Structure, function, and policy in American cities. Urban Affairs Quarterly14 (1): 103-122.
12.
Dye, T. , and S. MacManus. 1990. State vs. local public sector growth: A comparison of determinant models. Policy Studies Journal18(3): 645-657.
13.
Ebel, R.1991. A profile of county finances. Intergovernmental Perspective17 (1): 14-17.
14.
Eisinger, P.1988. The rise of the entrepreneurial state. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
Henderson, J.1968. Local government expenditures: A social welfare analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics50 (May): 156-163.
17.
Herson, L.1957. The lost world of municipal research. American Political Science Review51 (June): 330-345.
18.
Inman, R. P.1979. The fiscal performance of local governments: An interpretative review. In Current issues in urban economics, edited by P. Mieszkowski and M. Straszheim, 270-321. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
19.
International City Management Association . 1990. The municipal year book. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
Kenyon, D. , and J. Kincaid. 1991. Competition among states and local governments. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
21.
Liebert, R.1974. Municipal functions, structure, and expenditures: A reanalysis of recent research. Social Science Quarterly54 (March): 765-783.
22.
Lineberry, R. , and E. Fowler. 1967. Reformism and public policy in American cities. American Political Science Review61 (September): 701-716.
23.
Lyons, W.1978. Reform and response in American cities: Structure and policy reconsidered. Social Science Quarterly59:118-132.
24.
Marando, V. , and M. Reeves. 1991. Counties as local governments: Research issues and questions. Journal of Urban Affairs13 (1): 45-53.
25.
Morgan, D. , and J. Pelissero. 1980. Urban policy: Does political structure matter?American Political Science Review74 (4): 999-1006.
26.
Pammer, W.1990. Managing fiscal strain in major American cities. New York: Greenwood.
27.
Peterson, P.1981. City limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
28.
Schneider, M.1989. The competitive city: The political economy of suburbia. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
29.
Shannon, J.1991. Federalism's invisible regulator-interjurisdictional competition. In Competition in states and local governments, edited by D. Kenyon and J. Kincaid, 117-124. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
30.
Sharp, E.1986. The politics and economics of the new city debt. American Political Science Review80 (4): 1271-1288.
31.
Stein, R.1982. The political economy of municipal functional responsibility. Social Science Quarterly63 (3): 530-548.
32.
Sunley, E.1971. Determinants of government expenditures. American Journal of Economics and Sociology30 (October): 345-364.
33.
Tiebout, C.1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64 (December): 416-424.
34.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1988. County and city data book. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
35.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1989. Census of governments, 1987: Finance statistics. [computer file]. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.
36.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1990. Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
