This article explores the tax/service equation and progresses through variations in this equation that include productivity and privatization initiatives. Ultimately, as local governments utilize economy and efficiency techniques, they may minimize these techniques and look for other alternatives to tax increases or decreases in service. The author believes that the next progression in the tax/service equation is consolidation of governments. This article repudiates the conventional understanding that consolidation is only a solution for fragmented governments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanovetzJames M., DolanDrew A., and SwainJohn W. (1994). Managing Small Cities and Counties.Washington D.C.:International City/County Management Association.
2.
BellMichael E. and BowmanJohn H. (1995). “Property Taxes,” in PetersonJohn and StrchotaDennis (eds.). Local Government Finance
3.
BouchaertGeert (1992). “Public Productivity in Retrospect,” in HolzerM. (ed.) Public Productivity Handbook.New York: Marcel Dekker.
4.
GeorgeW. and LarkeyP.D. (1986). The Search for Government Efficiency from Hubris to Helplessness. New York: Random House.
5.
EhrenhaltAlan (1995). “Cooperate or Die.” Governing9 (Septem- ber):28–32.
6.
FeiockRichard C. and CarrJared (2001). “Incentives, Entrepreneurs, and Boundary Change: A Collective Action Framework.” Urban Affairs Review37 (January) Forthcoming 2001.
7.
FriedmanDavid D. (1990). Price Theory.Cincinnati: South Western.
8.
HankeSteve H. (1990). Prospects for Privatization.New York: Academy of Political Science.
9.
HoferKay (1997). “Property Tax Abatement: A Case Study in Impact Measurement,” in KhanAman and HildrethBartley W. (eds.). Case Studies in Budgeting and Financial Management. Dubuque: Ken- dall/Hunt.
10.
HolzerMarc and OlshfskiDorothy (1993). “The Availability in Financial Resources and Innovation or is Necessity the Mother of Invention,” in CallahanKathe and HolzerMarc (eds.), Public Productivity and Management Review17 (3).
11.
JohnsonLinda S. and FeiockRichard C. (1999). “City-County Consolidation: A Qualitative Comparative Approach.” Paper presented at the annul meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Savannah, November 1999.
12.
KarcherAlan J. (1998). New Jersey's Multiple Municipal Madness. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Pres.
13.
KarlMarx and EngelsFrederick (1948). The Communist Manifesto.New York: International.
14.
MikesellJohn L. (1995). Fiscal Administration.Belmont, WA :Wadsworth Publishing.
15.
MortonDavid R. and EnglandRobert (1996). Managing Urban AmericaChatham, NJ: Chatham House.
16.
PoisterTheodore H. and GrayHenry T. (1994). “Citizen Ratings of Public and Private Service Quality: A Comparative Perspective.” Public Administration Review54(2)155–160.
17.
RuskDavid (1995). Cities Without Suburbs, 2th ed.Washington, D.C:Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
18.
SayreWallace (1960). Governing New York.New York: Russel Sage.
19.
SavasEmanuel S. (1992). “Privatization and Productivity,” in HolzerM. (ed.). Public Productivity Handbook. New York: Marcel Dekker.
20.
StephensG. Ross and WikstromNelson (2000). Metropolitan Government and Governance: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis, and the Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
