US states grant their local units different levels of autonomy in several dimensions including fiscal, functional, structural, and legal discretion. This study uses a comprehensive, multidimensional measure of autonomy to test its association with the fiscal behavior of over 19,000 municipalities in the United States. Competing theoretical predictions range from significant increases in government size (Leviathan model), to no effect (median-voter model), and even smaller governments (institutional collective action model). Quantile regression analysis is implemented to test the association between autonomy and fiscal behavior for different city sizes. The empirical findings indicate that cities with more autonomy tend to spend less and have lower taxes and debt. The strength of this relationship, however, varies by city size.
AndrewSimon A.FeiockRichard C.. 2010. “Core-Peripheral Structure and Regional Governance: Implications of Paul Krugman’s New Economic Geography for Public Administration.” Public Administration Review70 (3): 494-499. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02163.x.
2.
AngristJoshuaPischkeJörn-Steffen. 2008. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. 1st ed.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3.
BermanDavidMartinLawrence. 1988. “State-Local Relations: An Examination of Local Discretion.” Public Administration Review48 (2): 637-641. doi: 10.2307/975765.
4.
BlackDuncan. 2012. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BowenHoward R.1943. “The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics58 (1): 27-48.
6.
BrennanGeoffreyBuchananJames. 1979. “The Logic of Tax Limits: Alternative Constitutional Constraints on the Power to Tax.” National Tax Journal32 (2): 11-22.
7.
BrennanGeoffreyBuchananJames. 1980. The Power to Tax: Analytic Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BrennanGeoffreyBuchananJames. 1981. “Revenue Implications of Money Creation under Leviathan.” The American Economic Review71 (2): 347-351.
9.
BrennanGeoffreyBuchananJames. 1984. “Towards a Tax Constitution for Leviathan.” In The Theory of Public Choice, edited by JamesM. BuchananTollisonRobert D., 71-89. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10.
BunchJaclyn. 2014. “Does Local Autonomy Enhance Representation? The Influence of Home Rule on County Expenditures.” State and Local Government Review46 (2): 106-117. doi: 10.1177/0160323x14536589.
11.
CameronAdrian ColinTrivediPravin. 2009. Microeconometrics Ussing Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
12.
CarrJered B.2015. “What Have We Learned about the Performance of Council-Manager Government? A Review and Synthesis of the Research.” Public Administration Review75 (5): 673-689. doi: 10.1111/puar.12415.
13.
ChapmanJeffrey I.2003. “Local Government Autonomy and Fiscal Stress: The Case of California Counties.” State and Local Government Review35 (1): 15-25. doi: 10.1177/0160323x0303500102.
14.
CrawMichael. 2008. “Taming the Local Leviathan: Institutional and Economic Constraints on Municipal Budgets.” Urban Affairs Review43 (5): 663-690. doi: 10.1177/1078087407311588.
15.
DeVellisRobert F.2003. Scale Development: Theory and Applications (Applied Social Research Methods Series). 2nd ed.Vol. 26. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications.
16.
DoveJohn A.2016. “Do Fiscal Constraints Prevent Default? Historical Evidence From U.S. Municipalities.” Economics of Governance17 (2): 185-209. doi: 10.1007/s10101-015-0172-y.
17.
DownsAnthony. 1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy65 (2): 135-150.
18.
DuPuisNicoleLanganTrevorMcFarlandChristianaPanettieriAngelinaRainwaterBrooks. 2017. City Rights in an Era of Preemption: A State-by-State Analysis. Washington, DC: National League of Cities Center for City Solutions.
19.
ElazarDaniel J.1966. American Federalism: A View From the States. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
20.
ElazarDaniel J.1994. The American Mosaic: The Impact Of Space, Time, And Culture On American Politics: Avalon Publishing.
21.
EomTae HoRubensteinRoss. 2006. “Do State-Funded Property Tax Exemptions Increase Local Government Inefficiency? An Analysis of New York State’s STAR Program.” Public Budgeting & Finance26 (1): 66-87.
22.
EvansDonald L.BodmanSamuel W., Kathleen BCooperKincannonCharles L.. 2002. “Government Organization.” In 2002 Census of Governments. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
23.
FeiockRichard C.2007. “Rational Choice and Regional Governance.” Journal of Urban Affairs29 (1): 47-63.
FeiockRichard C.ScholzJohn. 2010. Self-Organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate Institutional Collective Action Dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
FeiockRichard C.SteinackerAnnetteParkHyung Jun. 2009. “Institutional Collective Action and Economic Development Joint Ventures.” Public Administration Review69 (2): 256-270. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01972.x.
27.
GrosskopfShawnaHayesKathy J.TaylorLori L.WeberWilliam L.. 1999. “Anticipating the Consequences of School Reform: A New Use of DEA.” Management Science45 (4): 608-620. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.45.4.608.
28.
GrosskopfShawnaHayesKathy J.TaylorLori L.WeberWilliam L.. 2001. “On the Determinants of School District Efficiency: Competition and Monitoring.” Journal of Urban Economics49 (3): 453-478. doi: 10.1006/juec.2000.2201.
29.
GujaratiDamodar2007. Basic Econometrics. 4th ed.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
30.
HendrickRebeccaCrawfordJared. 2014. “Municipal Fiscal Policy Space and Fiscal Structure: Tools for Managing Spending Volatility.” Public Budgeting & Finance34 (3): 24-50.
31.
JimenezBenedict S.2017. “When Ties Bind: Public Managers’ Networking Behavior and Municipal Fiscal Health After the Great Recession.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27 (3): 450-467. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muw069.
32.
JimenezBenedict S.2013. “Strategic Planning and the Fiscal Performance of City Governments during the Great Recession.” The American Review of Public Administration43 (5): 581-601. doi: 10.1177/0275074012451051.
33.
JoycePhilip G.Mullins.Daniel R.1991. “The Changing Fiscal Structure of the State and Local Public Sector: The Impact of Tax and Expenditure Limitations.” Public Administration Review51 (3): 240-253. doi: 10.2307/976948.
34.
KaruppusamyShanthiCarrJered B.. 2012. “Interjurisdictional Competition and Local Public Finance: Assessing the Modifying Effects of Institutional Incentives and Fiscal Constraints.” Urban Studies49 (7): 1549-1569. doi: 10.1177/0042098011415435.
35.
KoenkerRoger. 2005. Quantile Regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
KraneDaleEbdonCarolBartleJohn. 2004. “Devolution, Fiscal Federalism, and Changing Patterns of Municipal Revenues: The Mismatch between Theory and Reality.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14 (4): 513-533. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muh034.
37.
KraneDaleRigosPlaton N.HillMelvin B.. 2001. Home Rule in America: A Fifty-State Handbook. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
38.
LadnerAndreasKeufferNicolas. 2021. “Creating an Index of Local Autonomy–Theoretical, Conceptual, and Empirical Issues.” Regional & Federal Studies31 (2): 209-234.
39.
LadnerAndreasKeufferNicolasBaldersheimHaraldHlepasNikosSwianiewiczPawelSteyversKristofNavarroCarmen. 2019. “What Is Local Autonomy?” In Patterns of Local Autonomy in Europe (Governance and Public Management), 3-36. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
40.
LeeIn-WonFeiockRichard C.LeeYoungmi. 2012. “Competitors and Cooperators: A Micro-Level Analysis of Regional Economic Development Collaboration Networks.” Public Administration Review72 (2): 253-262. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02501.x.
41.
LinerBlaine. 1989. A Decade of Devolution: Perspectives on State-Local Relations. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
42.
LiuCheolMikesellJohn L.. 2014. “The Impact of Public Officials’ Corruption on the Size and Allocation of U.S. State Spending.” Public Administration Review74 (3): 346-359. doi: 10.1111/puar.12212.
43.
LiuCheolMoldogazievTima T.MikesellJohn L.. 2017. “Corruption and State and Local Government Debt Expansion.” Public Administration Review77 (5): 681-690. doi: 10.1111/puar.12711.
44.
MaherCraig S.DellerStevenAmielLindsay. 2011. “Property Tax Limits and Fiscal Burdens: The Role of Organizational Structure.” Public Administration Quarterly35 (2): 205-240.
45.
MartinDavid. 1990. Running City Hall: Municipal Administration in America. 2nd ed.Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
46.
McCabeBarbara CoyleFeiockRichard C.. 2005. “Nested Levels of Institutions: State Rules and City Property Taxes.” Urban Affairs Review40 (5): 634-654. doi: 10.1177/1078087404274136.
47.
McGuireTherese J.1999. “Proposition 13 and Its Offspring: For Good or for Evil?” National Tax Journal, 52 (1): 129-138.
48.
MeierKenneth. 2016. The Politics of Sin: Drugs, Alcohol and Public Policy: Drugs, Alcohol and Public Policy: New York: Taylor & Francis.
49.
MoynihanDonald P.PandeySanjay K.. 2005. “Testing How Management Matters in an Era of Government by Performance Management.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15 (3): 421-439. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui016.
50.
MullinsDanielCoxKimberley. 1995. Tax and Expenditure Limits on Local Governments, Vol. 19. Washington, DC: Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, Indiana University.
51.
MullinsDaniel R.2004. “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and the Fiscal Response of Local Government: Asymmetric Intra‐Local Fiscal Effects.” Public Budgeting & Finance24 (4): 111-147.
52.
MullinsDaniel R.JoycePhilip G.. 1996. “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and State and Local Fiscal Structure: An Empirical Assessment.” Public Budgeting & Finance16 (1): 75-101.
53.
MullinsDaniel R.PaganoMichael A.. 2005. “Local Budgeting and Finance: 25 Years of Developments.” Public Budgeting & Finance25 (4s): 3-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5850.2005.00002.x.
54.
MullinsDaniel R.WallinBruce A.. 2004. “Tax and Expenditure Limitations: Introduction and Overview.” Public Budgeting & Finance24 (4): 2-15. doi: 10.1111/j.0275-1100.2004.00344.x.
55.
NielsenPoul A.2013. “Performance Management, Managerial Authority, and Public Service Performance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory24 (2): 431-458. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mut025.
56.
OstromElinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57.
ParentePaulo M. D. C.Santos SilvaJoão M. C.. 2016. “Quantile Regression with Clustered Data.” Journal of Econometric Methods5 (1): 1-15.
58.
ParkJi-HyungParkSunghoMaherCraig S.. 2018. “The Effects of Tax and Expenditure Limitations (TELs) on Municipal Fiscal Outcomes During a Period of Fiscal Distress.” Public Finance and Management18 (1): 84-110.
59.
ParkSunghoMaherCraig S.EbdonCarol. 2018. “Local Property Tax Limits in Nebraska: Within-State Variations in Effects.” Public Administration Quarterly42 (3): 328-371.
60.
RichardsonJesse J.2011. “Dillon’s Rule is From Mars, Home Rule is From Venus: Local Government Autonomy and the Rules of Statutory Construction.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism41 (4): 662-685. doi: 10.1093/publius/pjr030.
61.
RichardsonJesse J.GoughMeghan ZimmermanPuentesRobert. 2003. Is Home Rule the Answer? Clarifying the Influence of Dillon’s Rule on Growth Management. Report. Washington, DC: Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, the Brookings Institution.
62.
BrownTom. 2000. “Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limitation in Colorado: The Impact on Municipal Governments.” Public Budgeting & Finance20 (3): 29-50.
63.
RutherfordAmandaMeierKenneth. 2020. Race and Public Administration. New York: Taylor & Francis.
64.
ShadbegianRonald J.1998. “Do Tax and Expenditure Limitations Affect Local Government Budgets? Evidence From Panel Data.” Public Finance Review26 (2): 118-136. doi: 10.1177/109114219802600202.
65.
ShadbegianRonald J.1999. “The Effect of Tax and Expenditure Limitations on the Revenue Structure of Local Government, 1962–87.” National Tax Journal52 (2): 221-237. doi: 10.2307/41789391.
66.
SingletonRoyceStraitsBruce C.. 2010. Approaches to Social Research. 5th ed.New York: Oxford University Press.
67.
StallmannJudith I.MaherCraig S.DellerSteven C.ParkSungho. 2017. “Research on the Effects of Limitations on Taxes and Expenditures.” Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs3 (2): 197-222.
68.
StephensRoss. 1974. “State Centralization and the Erosion of Local Autonomy.” The Journal of Politics36 (01): 44-76.
69.
StephensG. RossNelsonWikstrom. 2000. Metropolitan Government and Governance: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis, and the Future. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
70.
TermanJessica N.FeiockRichard C.YoumJisun. 2020. “When Collaboration is Risky Business: The Influence of Collaboration Risks on Formal and Informal Collaboration.” The American Review of Public Administration50 (1): 33-44.
71.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Government Finance and Employment Classification Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
72.
VetterAngelika. 2007. Local Politics: A Resource for Democracy in Western Europe?New York: Lexington Books.
73.
WolmanHarold. 2008. “Comparing Local Government Systems across Countries: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges to Building a Field of Comparative Local Government Studies.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26 (1): 87-103. doi: 10.1068/cav5.
74.
WolmanHaroldMcManmonRobertBellMichaelBrunoriDavid. 2010. “Comparing Local Government Autonomy Across States.” In Property Tax and Local Autonomy, edited by MichaelBellBrunoriDavidYoungmanJoan, 69-119. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
75.
WoodCurtis. 2011. “Understanding the Consequences of Municipal Discretion.” The American Review of Public Administration41 (4): 411-427. doi: 10.1177/0275074010381111.
76.
WooldridgeJeffrey. 2013. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 5th ed.Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
77.
ZimmermanJoseph Francis. 1981. Measuring Local Discretionary Authority. Washington, DC: Advisory Comission on Intergovernmental Relations.
Berry WilliamDCRichard FordingJEvan RingquistECarl Klarner. 1995. Measuring citizen and government ideology in the US states: A re-appraisal. State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 201010(3): 117‐135.
