This study extends Peterson’s city limits perspective to counties to empirically examine how economic, political, institutional, and demographic factors influence overall county spending and spending priorities across three core policy arenas. Pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis of Florida counties reveals that although population density and economic conditions influence spending, politics and institutions matter. Political ideology as indicated by presidential and gubernatorial Democratic vote share has a positive influence on all three spending categories. The findings also reveal that county adoption of a home rule charter leads to greater emphasis on developmental and redistributive rather than allocational functions.
Beck, N., & Katz, J.N. ( 1995). What to do and not to do: With time-series cross sectional data. American Journal of Political Science, 89, 634-647.
2.
Benton, J.E. ( 2002). Counties government service delivery: Does government structure matter? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 471-479.
3.
Benton, J.E. ( 2003a). Counties government structure and county revenue policy: What’s the connection? State and Local Government Review , 35(2), 78-89.
4.
Benton, J.E. ( 2003b). The impact of structural reform on county government service provision. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), 858-874.
5.
Benton, J.E. ( 2005). An assessment of research onAmerican counties. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 462-474.
6.
Benton, J.E. ( 2006, January). County government service provision: The impact of urbanization and population growth. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Political Science Association , Atlanta, GA.
7.
Benton, J.E., Byers, J., Cigler, B.A., Klase, K.A., Menzel, D.C., Salant, T.J., et al. (2008). Conducting research on counties in the 21st century: A new agenda and database considerations. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 968-983.
8.
Benton, J.E., & Feiock, R. ( 2006). Local governments: Institutions of governance and agents of service delivery. In J. E. Benton (Ed.), Government and politics in Florida (pp. 240-264). Gainesville : University of Florida Press.
9.
Berry, W.D., & Lowery, D. ( 1987). Explaining the size of the public sector: Responsive and excessive government interpretations. Journal of Politics , 49, 401-440.
10.
Bickers, K.N., Salucci, L., & Stein, R.M. ( 2006). Assessing the micro-foundations of the Tiebout model . Urban Affairs Review, 42(1), 57-80.
11.
Blais, A., Black, D., & Dion, S. ( 1993). Do parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 40-62.
12.
Boix, C. ( 2001). Democracy, development, and the public sector . American Journal of Political Science, 45, 1-17.
13.
Briechle, K.J. ( 1999). Smart growth for local government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
14.
Cameron, D.R. ( 1978). The expansion of the public economy: A comparative analysis . American Political Science Review, 72, 1243-1261.
15.
Chamlin, M.B. ( 1987). General assistance among cities: An explanation of the need, economic threat, and benign neglect hypotheses. Social Science Quarterly, 68, 834-846.
16.
Clingermayer, J.C., & Feiock, R.C. ( 2001). Institutional constraints and policy choice: An exploration of local governance. Albany: State University of New York Press.
17.
Dawson, R.E., & Robinson, J. ( 1963). Interparty competition, economic variables, and welfare policies in the United States. Journal of Politics , 2, 265-289.
18.
DeSantis, V.S., & Renner, T. ( 1996). Structure and policy expenditures. In D. C. Menzel & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), The American county (pp. 80-91). Tuscaloosa : University of Alabama Press.
19.
Downs, A. ( 1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
20.
Dye, T.R., & MacManus, S.A. (1990). State vs. local sector growth: A comparison of determinant models. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 645-660.
21.
Duncombe, H.S. ( 1977). Modern county government. Washington, DC: National Association of Counties.
22.
Erikson, R.S., Wright, G.C., & McIver, J. (1993). Statehouse democracy . New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Feiock, R.C. ( 2002). A Quasi-Market Framework for Local Economic Development Competition. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 123-142.
24.
Feiock, R.C. ( 2004). Politics, institutions and local land-use regulation . Urban Studies, 41(2), 363-375.
25.
Feiock, R.C., & Kim, J. ( 2001). Form of government, administrative organization, and economic development policy choices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 290-301.
26.
Feiock, R.C., Tavares, A.F., & Lubell, M. ( 2008). County government institutions and policy instruments for land use regulation. Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 461-480.
27.
Florida Statistical Abstract. (1992- 2003). University of Florida Bureau of Economics: University Press of Florida.
28.
Garand, J.C. ( 1985). Partisan change and shifting expenditure priorities in the American states, 1945-1978. American Politics Quarterly , 13, 355-391.
29.
Garand, J.C. ( 1988). Explaining government growth in the U.S. states . American Political Science Review, 13, 837-849.
30.
Garand, J.C. ( 1993, May). New perspectives on the size of government in the American states: A pooled analysis, 1960-1984. Paper presented at the Politics of State Economic Development: Prospects and Problems in State Economic Intervention conference, Chicago .
31.
Gramlich, E.M., & Rubinfeld, D.L. (1982). Micro estimates of public spending demand functions and tests of the Tiebout and medial voter hypotheses . Journal of Political Economy, 90(3), 536-560.
32.
Grogan, C.M. ( 1994). Political-economic factors influencing state Medicaid policy. Political Research Quarterly, 47, 589-623.
33.
Hajnal, Z.L.U., & Trounstine, J. (2008, April). Who or what governs? The effects of economics, politics, institutions, and needs on urban governance . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
34.
Jeong, M.-G. ( 2006). Local choice for development impact fees. Urban Affairs Review, 41(3), 338-357.
35.
Jud, D.R., & Mendelson, R.E. (1973). The politics of urban planning: The East St. Louis experience. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
36.
Klingman, D., & Lammers, W.W. ( 1984). The general policy liberalism factor in American state politics. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 598-610.
37.
Lewis-Beck, M.S., & Rice, T.W. ( 1985). Government growth in the United States. Journal of Politics, 47, 2-30.
38.
Liebert, R. ( 1974). Functions, structure, and expenditures: A re-analysis of recent research. Social Science Quarterly, 54, 765-783.
39.
Lineberry, R.L., & Fowler, E.P. ( 1967). Reformism and Public Policies inAmerican Cities. American Political Science Review, 61(3), 701-716.
40.
Lowery, D., & Berry, W.D. ( 1983). The growth of government in the United States . American Journal of Political Science, 72, 665-694.
41.
Lowi, T.J. ( 1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 33, 298-310.
42.
Lubell, M., Feiock, R., & Ramirez, E. ( 2005). Political institutions and conservation by local governments . Urban Affairs Review, 40(6), 706-729.
43.
MacManus, S.A. ( 1996). County board, partisanship, and elections. In D. C. Menzel & John P. Thomas (Eds.), The American county (pp. 53-79). Tuscaloosa : University of Alabama Press.
44.
Marquette, J.F., & Hinckley, K.A. (1981). Competition, control and spurious covariation: A longitudinal analysis of state spending. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 362-375.
45.
Menzel, D.C. ( 1996). The American county: Frontiers in knowledge. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press .
46.
Menzel, D.C., Marando, V.L., Parks, R.B., Waugh, W.L., Cigler, B., Svara, J.H., et al. (1992). Setting a research agenda for the study of theAmerican county. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 173-182.
47.
Munns, J.M. ( 1975). The Environment, Politics, and Policy Literature: A Critique and Reformulation. The Western Political Quarterly , 28, 646-667.
48.
Nice, D. ( 1986). State support for constitutional balanced budget requirements . Journal of Politics, 48, 134-142.
49.
Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. ( 1977). Public goods and public choice. In E. S. Savas (Ed.), Alternatives for delivering public services (pp. 7-49). Boulder, CO: Westview .
50.
Park, K.O. ( 1996). Determinants of county government growth. In D. C. Menzel & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), The American county (pp. 33-52). Tuscaloosa : University of Alabama Press.
51.
Peterson, P.E. ( 1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
Schneider, M. ( 1987). Income homogeneity and the size of suburban government . Journal of Politics, 49, 36-53.
53.
Schneider, M. ( 1989). The competitive city: The political economy of suburbia . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
54.
Schneider, M., & Park, K.O. ( 1989). Metropolitan counties as service delivery agents: The still forgotten governments. Public Administration Review , 49, 345-352.
55.
Stein, R.M. ( 1981). The allocation of federal aid monies: The synthesis of demand-side and supply-side explanations. American Political Science Review, 75, 334-343.
56.
Svara, J.H. ( 1996). Leadership and professionalism in county government . In D. C. Menzel & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), The American county (pp. 109-127). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press .
57.
Taggart, W.A., & Winn, R.G. ( 1993). Imprisonment in theAmerican states. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 736-749.
58.
The Municipal Year Book. (1993- 2003). Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association.
59.
Thomas, R.D., & Marando, V.L. ( 1981). Local government reform and territorial democracy: The case of Florida. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 11(1), 49-63.
60.
Thornton, M., & Ulrich, M. ( 1999). Constituency size and government spending. Public Finance Review, 27(6), 588-598.
61.
Wagner, A. ( 1958). The nature of the fiscal economy (N. Cooke, Trans.) . In R. A. Musgrave & A. T. Peacock (Eds.), Classics in the theory of public finance (pp. 1-8). New York: Macmillan. (Original work published 1883)
