During the past few decades, local governments have extended the scope of their activities in response to changing economic and political conditions. By and large, research on local governments neglects counties, now the fastest growing general-purpose governments. This article examines counties’roles in economic development and public service activities and reports on findings from a national survey of county governments with broad generalizability and a relatively high response rate across metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Counties provide important services that promote local economic development, enhance human capital, and serve social safety net functions. In accordance with literature on decentralization, the scope of these activities is reported to have grown with the passage of time. Relative to other counties, however, nonmetro counties provide fewer economic development and other public services and are less likely to have increased their role in these activities over time. The article examines reasons for these metro-nonmetro differences.
Basolo, V., & Huang, C. (2001). Cities and economic development: Does the city limits story still apply?Economic Development Quarterly, 15(4), 327-339.
2.
Brady, H. A., Sprague, M., Grey, F., & Wiseman, M. (2002). Seasonal employment dynamics and welfare use in agricultural and rural California counties. In B. Weber, G. Duncan, & L. Whitener (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform (pp. 147-175). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
3.
Bukenya, J. O., Gebremedhin, T. G., & Schaeffer, P. V. (2003). Analysis of rural quality of life and health: A spatial approach. Economic Development Quarterly, 17(3), 280-293.
4.
Cigler, B. A. (1993). The special problems of rural governments. In D. R. Berman (Ed.), County governments in an era of change (pp. 89-106). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
5.
Cox, K. R. (1997). Introduction: Globalization and its politics in question. In K. R. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization: Reasserting the power of the local (pp. 1-18). New York: Guildford.
6.
Dewees, S., Lobao, L., & Swanson, L. (2003). Local economic development in an age of devolution. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 182-206.
7.
Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley.
8.
Donahue, J. D. (1997). Disunited states. New York: Basic Books.
9.
Economic Research Service. (1997). Rural conditions and trends: Federal programs issue (Vol. 7). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
10.
Economic Research Service. (2001). Measuring rurality: Rural-urban continuum codes. Available from http://www.ers.sda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/RuralurbCon/
11.
Eisinger, P. K. (1988). The rise of the entrepreneurial state. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
12.
Fisher, P. S., & Ditsler, E. (2003). Taxes and state economic growth: The myths and reality. Mount Vernon, IA: The Iowa Policy Project. Available from http://iowapolicyproject.org
13.
Gibbs, R. M. (2002). Rural labor markets in era of welfare reform. In B. Weber, G. Duncan, & L. Whitener (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform (pp. 51-76). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
14.
Giloth, R. P. (2000). Learning from the field: Economic growth and workforce development in the 1990s. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(4), 340-359.
15.
Goetz, S. J., & Freshwater, D. (1997). Effects of welfare reform on rural counties and labor markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(5), 1608-1613.
16.
Henry, M., Reinschmiedt, L., Lewis, W., Jr., & Hudson, D. (2002). Reducing food stamp and welfare caseloads in the south. In B. Weber, G. Duncan, & L. Whitener (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform (pp. 113-146). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
17.
Jensen, L., & Chitose, Y. (1997). Will workfare work? Job availability for welfare recipients in rural and urban America. Population Research and Policy Review, 16, 383-395.
18.
Johnson, K. M., Pelissero, J. P., Holian, D., & Maly, M. T. (1995). Local government fiscal burden in nonmetropolitan America. Rural Sociology, 60(3), 381-398.
19.
Kantor, P. (1995). The dependent city revisited. Boulder, CO: Westview.
20.
Kodras, J. (1997). Restructuring the state: Devolution, privatization, and the geographic redistribution of power and capacity in governance. In L. Seaeheli, J. Kodras, & C. Flint (Eds.), State devolution in America (pp. 79-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Kraybill, D. S., & Weber, B. A. (1995). Institutional change and economic development in rural America. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(5), 1265-1270.
22.
Lichter, D., & Jensen, L. (2002). Rural America in transition: Poverty and welfare reform at the turn of the century. In B. Weber, G. Duncan, & L. Whitener (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform (pp. 77-110). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
23.
Lobao, L. M. (1990). Locality and inequality. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
Lobao, L. M., Rulli, J., & Brown, L. A. (1999). Macro-level theory and local level inequality: Industrial structure, institutional arrangements and the political economy of redistribution, 1970-1990. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(4), 571-601.
25.
Loveridge, S. (1996). On the continuing popularity of industrial recruitment. Economic Development Quarterly, 10(2), 151-158.
26.
Nord, M. (1998). Racial and spatial equity in welfare payments: Interstate and intercounty differences in welfare spending. Rural Development Perspectives, 13(3), 11-18.
27.
Peck, J. (1996). Work-Place: The social regulation of labor markets. New York: Guildford.
28.
Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Razin, E. (2000). The impact of local government organization on development and disparities: A comparative perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18, 17-31.
30.
Reese, L. (1994). The role of counties in local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 8(1), 28-42.
31.
Reese, L., & Rosenfeld, R. (2002). The civic culture of local economic development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Gill, N. (2003). The global trend toward devolution and its implications. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21, 333-351.
33.
Rural Policy Research Institute. (1995). Block grants and rural America. Columbia, MO: Author.
34.
Stoker, G., & Mossberger, K. (1995). The post-Fordist local state: The dynamics of its development. In J. Stewart & G. Stoker (Eds.), Local government in the 1990s (pp. 210-227). London: Macmillan.
35.
Sullivan, D. M. (2002). Local governments as risk takers and risk reducers: An examination of business subsidies and subsidy controls. Economic Development Quarterly, 16(2), 115-126.
36.
Tickamyer, A., White, J., Tadlock, B., & Henderson, D. (2002). Where all the counties are above average: Human service agency directors’perspectives on welfare reform. In B. Weber, G. Duncan, & L. Whitener (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform (pp. 231-254). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
37.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1993). 1990 census of population, summary tape files 3 and 4 [Data file]. Washington, DC: Author.
38.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1999). USA counties CD-ROM 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
39.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
40.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF): Fifth annual report to Congress. Available from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport5/index.htm
41.
Warner, M., & Hefetz, A. (2002). The uneven distribution of market solutions for public goods. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(4), 445-459.
42.
Wolman, H. (1995). Local government institutions and democratic governance. In D. Judge, G. Stoker, & H. Wolman (Eds.), Theories of urban politics (pp. 135-159). London: Sage.
43.
Wolman, H. (with Spitzley, D.). (1996). The politics of local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 10(2) 115-150.
