This article assesses the impacts of bottom-up local governing institutions relative to top-down bureaucracies in local service delivery. Community services districts (CSDs) in California, a class of special districts that provides various neighborhood-level services, are examined to answer this question. An innovative characteristic of this institutional form is that it is residents who create them through a grass-root collective action to achieve a bottom-up governance structure, after opting out from a county service system. With changes in residential property values as performance metrics, the quantitative analysis utilizes district formation events and features a hedonic difference-in-difference regression. The results show that the creation of CSDs produces more significant impacts on property values than county authorities do. Yet, the effects are heterogeneous across the communities when the analysis is further drilled down to each district. The exploratory qualitative case study then uses interview data with district managers and document analysis to unveil what administrative factors explain the success and failure trajectory of bottom-up institution management. The case study identifies such factors as critical codeterminants, including managerial and board leadership, clarity of a problem statement, public support, and intergovernmental coordination with county and state agencies.
BermanE. M.WestJ. P. (2012). Public values in special districts: A survey of managerial commitment. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 43–54.
4.
BerryC. (2008). Piling on: Multilevel government and the fiscal common-pool. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 802–820.
5.
BesleyT.BurgessR. (2002). The political economy of government responsiveness: Theory and evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1415–1451.
6.
BesleyT.CoateS. (2003). Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: A political economy approach. Journal of Public Economics, 87(12), 2611–2637.
7.
BlackS. E. (1999). Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), 577–599.
8.
BollensJ. C.GausJ. M. (1957). Special district governments in the United States. University of California Press.
9.
BourdeauxC. (2004). A question of genesis: An analysis of the determinants of public authorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 441–462.
10.
BovairdT. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.
11.
BoxR. C. (1997). Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century. SAGE.
12.
BoyneG. A. (1992). Local government structure and performance: Lessons from America?Public Administration, 70(3), 333–357.
13.
BurnsN. (1994). The formation of American local governments: Private values in public institutions. Oxford University Press on Demand.
14.
CameronA. C.MillerD. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372.
15.
CarrJ. B. (2006). Local government autonomy and state reliance on special district governments: A reassessment. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 481–492.
16.
CarrJ. B.FarmerJ. (2011). Contingent effects of municipal and county TELs on special district usage in the United States. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(4), 709–733.
17.
CarterD. P.DeslatteA.ScottT. A. (2019). The formation and administration of multipurpose development districts: Private interests through public institutions. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 57–74.
CooperT. L.BryerT. A.MeekJ. W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66, 76–88.
22.
CrawM. (2017). Institutional analysis of neighborhood collective action. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 707–717.
23.
DeslatteA.ScottT. A.CarterD. P. (2019). Specialized governance and regional land-use outcomes: A spatial analysis of Florida community development districts. Land Use Policy, 83, 227–239.
24.
EckerdA.HeidelbergR. L. (2020). Administering public participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(2), 133–147.
25.
EgerR. J.III. (2006). Casting light on shadow government: A typological approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 125–137.
FayD. L. (2016). Planning for a payout: Effectiveness of special purpose entities as state lottery administrations. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(5), 614–631.
28.
FeiockR. C.ScholzJ. T. (Eds.). (2009). Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. Cambridge University Press.
29.
FolzD. H.AbdelrazekR. (2009). Professional management and service levels in small U.S. communities. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(5), 553–569.
30.
FosterK. A. (1997). The political economy of special-purpose government. Georgetown University Press.
31.
FrenchP. E.FolzD. H. (2004). Executive behavior and decision making in small U.S. cities. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(1), 52–66.
32.
GoodmanC. B. (2015). Local government fragmentation and the local public sector: A panel data analysis. Public Finance Review, 43(1), 82–107.
33.
GoodmanC. B. (2019, January17–19). Patterns in special district creation and dissolution [Paper presentation]. 2019 Southern Political Science Association Meeting, Austin, TX, United States.
34.
GoodmanC. B.LelandS. M. (2019). Do cities and counties attempt to circumvent changes in their autonomy by creating special districts?The American Review of Public Administration, 49(2), 203–217.
35.
GreerR.MoldogazievT.ScottT. (2018). Polycentric governance and the impact of special districts on fiscal common pools. International Journal of the Commons, 12(2), 108–136.
36.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.
37.
HeikkilaT.ElyT. L. (2003, March). A comparative analysis of the effect of state institutions on the proliferation of special district governments [Paper presentation]. 3rd Annual Conference on State Politics and Policy, Tucson, AZ, United States.
38.
HeikkilaT.GerlakA. K. (2005). The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management institutions: Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4), 583–612.
39.
HeikkilaT.IsettK. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and performance management in special-purpose governments. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 238–248.
40.
HendrickR. M.JimenezB. S.LalK. (2011). Does local government fragmentation reduce local spending?Urban Affairs Review, 47(4), 467–510.
41.
HoA.CoatesP. (2004). Citizen-initiated performance assessment: The initial Iowa experience. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(3), 29–50.
42.
HongS. (2015). Citizen participation in budgeting: A trade-off between knowledge and inclusiveness?Public Administration Review, 75(4), 572–582.
43.
IrvinR. A.StansburyJ. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.
44.
KoontzT. M.NewigJ. (2014). From planning to implementation: Top-down and bottom-up approaches for collaborative watershed management. Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), 416–442.
45.
LeachW. D.WeibleC. M.VinceS. R.SiddikiS. N.CalanniJ. C. (2014). Fostering learning through collaboration: Knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine aquaculture partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 591–622.
46.
LiH.WenB.CooperT. L. (2019). What makes neighborhood associations effective in urban governance? Evidence from neighborhood council boards in Los Angeles. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(8), 931–943.
MacManusS. A. (1981). Special district governments: A note on their use as property tax Relief mechanisms in the 1970s. The Journal of Politics, 43(4), 1207–1214.
50.
MeltzerR.CheungR. (2014). How are homeowners associations capitalized into property values?Regional Science and Urban Economics, 46(C), 93–102.
51.
MillerG. J. (1981). Cities by contract: The politics of municipal incorporation. MIT Press.
52.
MoldogazievT. T.ScottT. A.GreerR. A. (2019). Organizational dissolutions in the public sector: An empirical analysis of municipal utility water districts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(4), 535–555.
53.
MullinM. (2008). The conditional effect of specialized governance on public policy. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 125–141.
54.
MullinM. (2009). Governing the Tap: Special district governance and the new local politics of water. MIT Press.
55.
MussoJ. A.WeareC.OztasN.LogesW. E. (2006). Neighborhood governance reform and networks of community power in Los Angeles. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 79–97.
56.
OatesW. E. (1969). The effects of property taxes and local public spending on property values: An empirical study of tax capitalization and the Tiebout hypothesis. Journal of Political Economy, 77(6), 957–971.
57.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.
58.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press.
59.
OstromE. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.
60.
OstromV.TieboutC. M.WarrenR. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842.
61.
PatrickC.MothorpeC. (2017). Demand for new cities: Property value capitalization of municipal incorporation. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 67(C), 78–89.
62.
RosenS. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.
ShiY. (2017). The rise of specialized governance in American federalism: Testing links between local government autonomy and formation of special district governments. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 47(1), 99–130.
65.
SkelcherC. (2005). Jurisdictional integrity, polycentrism, and the design of democratic governance. Governance, 18(1), 89–110.
66.
SkelcherC. (2006). Does democracy matter? A transatlantic research design on democratic performance and special purpose governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 61–76.
67.
SmithJ. M. (2019). Special-purpose authorities. In OrumA. M. (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of urban and regional studies (pp. 1–4). John Wiley.
WeberE. P. (2009). Explaining institutional change in tough cases of collaboration: “Ideas” in the Blackfoot watershed. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 314–327.
75.
ZhangP. (2019). The non-randomness of municipal government reorganization: Evidence from village dissolution in New York. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(8), 914–930.
76.
ZhangP.HolzerM. (2020). Do small local governments fare well? A survey of villages in New York. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(1), 77–91.
77.
ZhangX.FanS.ZhangL.HuangJ. (2004). Local governance and public goods provision in rural China. Journal of Public Economics, 88(12), 2857–2871.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
