Federalism involves allocation of powers between units of government at different geographic levels. In local areas, changes in relationships between units of government may be effected through incorporation or disincorporation, annexation, formation of new layers of government, or interjurisdictional agreements. It may be difficult for residents who seek change to achieve it through alteration of jurisdictional boundaries or intergovernmental hierarchical relationships, however, they may gain similar benefits through intrajurisdictional arrangements such as neighborhood organizations. Such strategies of change from within are common, however, in an interesting variation, failed efforts at forming new jurisdictions through secession from the City of Los Angeles have occurred during startup of a neighborhood program intended to give greater voice to subjurisdictional areas. The article examines this situation, suggesting that formation of intrajurisdictional units may operate as an alternative form of local federalism.
Bang, H. P.
,& Sørensen, E. (1999). The everydaymaker: Anewchallenge to democratic governance. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 21, 325-341.
2.
Bardach, E.
(1980). On designing implementable programs. In G. Majone& E. S. Quade (Eds.), Pitfalls of analysis (pp. 338-358). New York: John Wiley.
3.
Bennett, L. W.
(1998). The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. Political Science and Politics, 31, 741-761.
4.
Berry, J. M.
, Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
Bish, R. L.
, & Ostrom, V. (1973). Understanding urban government: Metropolitan reform reconsidered. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
6.
Box, R. C.
(1998). Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Buchanan, J. M.
(1965). An economic theory of clubs. Economica, 32, 1-14.
8.
Burnell, B. S.
(1991). The effect of school district structure on education spending. Public Choice, 69, 253-264.
9.
Burns, N.
(1994). The formation of American local governments. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
Cornell, S.
(1999). The other founders: Anti-federalism and the dissenting tradition in America, 1788-1828.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
11.
Dowding, K.
, John, P.,& Biggs, S. (1994). Tiebout: Asurvey of the empirical literature. Urban Studies, 31, 767-797.
12.
Ellickson, B.
(1977). The politics and economics of decentralization. Journal of Urban Economics, 4, 135-149.
13.
Elshtain, J. B.
(2002). Jane Addams and the dream of American democracy: A life. New York: Basic Books.
14.
Epple, D.
, & Romer, T. (1989). On the flexibility of municipal boundaries. Journal of Urban Economics, 26, 307-319.
15.
Ferman, B.
(2002, September). Broadening the franchise: Charter reform and neighborhood councils in Los Angeles. Paper presented at the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation conference, Reform, Los Angeles Style: The Theory and Practice of Urban Governance at Century’s Turn, University of Southern California. Available at www.haynesfoundation.org/WordDocs/Ferman.doc/
16.
Fine, H.
(2004, March 1). Problems frustrate neighborhood councils in test of newroles, Los Angeles Business Journal, p. 3-3.
17.
Follett, M. P.
(1998). The new state: Group organization the solution of popular government. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. (Original work published 1918)
18.
Forbes, K. F.
, & Zampelli, E. M. (1989). Is leviathan a mythical beast?American Economic Review, 79, 568-577.
19.
Gold, M.
(2003, June 28). Public will get say in bid to name street after Bradley. Los Angeles Times, p. B4-B4.
20.
Hamilton, B. W.
(1975). Zoning and property taxation in a system of local governments. Urban Studies, 12, 205-211.
21.
Hamilton, B. W.
(1976). Capitalization of intrajurisdictional differences in local tax prices. American Economic Review, 66, 743-753.
22.
Heikkila, E.
(1996). Are municipalities Tieboutian clubs?Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26, 203-226.
23.
Henderson, J. V.
(1985). The Tiebout Hypothesis: Bring back the entrepreneurs. Journal of Political Economy, 93, 248-264.
24.
Hirschman, A. O.
(1970). Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Hogen-Esch, T.
(2001). Urban secession and the politics of growth: The case of Los Angeles. Urban Affairs Review, 36, 783-809.
26.
Hogan-Esch, T.
(2002, September). The coalition dynamics of secession in Los Angeles. Paper presented at the conference of the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation on reform in Los Angeles, CA.
27.
Hollywood VOTE
. (2002). Answers to frequently asked questions. Retrieved January 12, 2003, from http://www.hollywoodvote.org/faq/
28.
Kincaid, J.
(1989, spring). Metropolitan governance: Reviving international and market analogies. Intergovernmental Perspective, 15, 23-27.
29.
Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission
. (2002, May). Resolution of LAFCO for Los Angeles County making determination for approval of the San Fernando Valley special reorganization. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
30.
Lowery, D.
, De Hoog, R. H., & Lyons, W. E. (1992). Citizenship in the empowered locality: An elaboration, a critique, and a partial test. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 28, 69-103.
31.
Lyons, W. E.
, & Lowery, D. (1989). Governmental fragmentation versus consolidation: Five public choice myths about how to create informed, involved, and happy citizens. Public Administration Review, 49, 533-543.
32.
Mattson, K.
(1998). Creating a democratic republic: The struggle for urban participatory democracy during the Progressive Era. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
33.
McGreevy, P.
(2004, March 31). Water hikes put on hold. Los Angeles Times, p. B1-B1.
34.
McGuire, M.
(1974). Group segregation and optimal jurisdictions. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 112-132.
35.
Morgan, D. R.
, & Mareschal, P. (1999). Central-city/suburban inequality and metropolitan political fragmentation. Urban Affairs Review, 34, 578-595.
36.
Musso, J.
(1999). Federalism and community in the metropolis: Can Los Angeles neighborhoods help govern gargantua?Administrative Theory and Praxis, 21, 342-353.
37.
Musso, J.
(2001) The political economy of city formation in California: Limits to Tiebout sorting. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 139-154.
38.
Musso, J.
, & Kitsuse, A. (2002). Urban regimes, social movements, and the politics of Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles. Paper presented at American Society for Public Administration research conference, March 2002, Phoenix, AZ, and at Haynes Research Conference, Reform, Los Angeles Style: The Theory and Practice of Urban Governance at Century’s Turn, School of Policy, Planning and Development, September 19-20, 2002, Los Angeles.
39.
Oates, W. E.
(1972). Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
40.
Orfield, M.
(1997). Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
41.
Ostrom, E.
(2000). The danger of self-evident truths. Political Science and Politics, 33, 33-44.
42.
Ostrom, V.
(1994). The meaning of American federalism: Constituting a self-governing society. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
43.
Ostrom, V.
, Tiebout, C. M.,& Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Review of Political Science, 55, 831-842.
44.
Parks, R. B.
,& Oakerson, R. J. (1993). Comparative metropolitan organization: Service production and governance structures in St. Louis (MO) and Allegheny County (PA). Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 23, 19-39.
45.
Public Policy Institute of California
. (2003, March). PPIC statewide survey: Special survey of Los Angeles in collaboration with University of Southern California. Available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_303MBS.pdf
46.
Putnam, R. D.
(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
47.
Rusk, D.
(1993). Cities without suburbs. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
48.
Sheldon, G. W.
(1991). The political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
49.
Sheppard, H.
,& Barrett, B. (2002, November 6). Breakupmovements fall short at the polls. Daily News. Available at www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%7E25075%7E973270,00.html
50.
Siegel, F.
(1997). The future once happened here: New York, DC, LA and the fate of America’s big cities. New York: Free Press.
51.
Slaughter, T. P.
(1986). The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier epilogue to the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
52.
Stillman, R. J., II.
(1996). The American bureaucracy: The core of modern government(2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
53.
Thomson, K.
(2001). From neighborhood to nation: The democratic foundations of civil society. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
54.
Tiebout, C. M.
(1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
55.
de Tocqueville, A.
(1969). Democracy in America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
56.
U.S. Bureau of the Census
. (2001). United States Census 2000. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_PL_U_QTPL_geo_id=16000US0644000.html
57.
Zax, J. S.
(1989). Is there a leviathan in your neighborhood?American Economic Review, 79, 560-567.
