City charters affect the governance of municipal systems in complex ways. Current descriptions and typologies developed to study city charter structures simplify the diverse types and configurations of institutional rules underlying charter designs. This research note demonstrates a more detailed approach for studying the design of city charters using analytical methods based on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. This approach is illustrated with a pilot study of institutional rules in municipal charters that define the roles and duties of mayors. The findings reveal that city charters exhibit great institutional diversity, particularly within strong mayor cities. We conclude with a research agenda that could generate a more precise and rigorous understanding of the relationship between the different configurations of institutions of city charters and the politics, governance, and performance of municipalities.
AdrianCharles R.1987. History of American City Government: The Emergence of the Metropolis, 1920-45. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of America.
2.
BaeJungahFeiockRichard C.2013. “Forms of Government and Climate Change Policies in U.S. Cities.” Urban Studies50 (4): 776–88.
3.
BasurtoXavierKingsleyGordonMcQueenKellySmithMshadoniWeibleChristopher M.2010. “A Systematic Approach to Institutional Analysis: Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s Grammatical Syntax.” Political Science Quarterly63 (3): 523–37.
4.
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): 678–89.
5.
CarrJered B.KaruppusamyShanthi. 2010. “Reassessing the Link Between City Structure and Fiscal Policy: Is the Problem Poor Measures of Governmental Structure?” The American Review of Public Administration40 (2): 209–28.
6.
CarrJered B.TavaresAntonio. 2014. “City Size and Political Participation in Local Government: Reassessing the Contingent Effects of Residential Location Decisions Within Urban Regions.” Urban Affairs Review50 (2): 269–302.
7.
ChoiCheon GeunFeiockRichard C.BaeJungah. 2013. “Adoptions and Abandonments of Council Manager Government.” Public Administration Review73 (5): 727–36.
8.
ClingermayerJered C.FeiockRichard C.1991. Institutional Constraints and Policy Choice: An Exploration of Local Governance. SUNY Series in Public Administration. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
9.
CrawfordSueOstromElinor. 1995. “A Grammar of Institutions.” The American Political Science Review89 (3): 582–600.
10.
CrawfordSueOstromElinor. 2005. “A Grammar of Institutions.” In Understanding Institutional Diversity, edited by OstromE., 137-139. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
11.
D’AndradeRoy G.1984. “Cultural Meaning Systems.” In Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion, edited by ShwederR. A.LeVineR. A., 88–119. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
12.
DeSantisVictor S.RennerTari. 2002. “City Government Structure: An Attempt at Clarification.” State and Local Government Review34 (2): 95–104.
13.
EskridgeRobert D.2014. “Understanding CEO Role Perception and Time Usage: Are New Municipal Typologies Useful?”Public Administration Research1 (3): 52–67.
14.
FeiockRichard C.JeongMoon-GiKimJaehoon. 2003. “Credible Commitment and Council Manager Government: Implications for Policy Instrument Choice.” Public Administration Review63 (5): 568–77.
15.
FredericksonH. GeorgeJohnsonGary A.2001. “The Adapted American City: A Study of Institutional Dynamics.” Urban Affairs Review36 (6): 872–84.
16.
FredericksonH. GeorgeJohnsonGary A.WoodCurtis H.2004. The Adapted City: Institutional Dynamics and Structural Change. New York: Armonk.
17.
FredericksonH. GeorgeLoganBrettWoodCurtis H.2003. “Municipal Reform in Mayor-Council Cities: A Well-Kept Secret.” State and Local Government Review35 (1): 7–14.
18.
GriffithErnest S.1974. A History of American City Government: The Progressive Years and Their Aftermath, 1900-1920. New York: Praeger.
19.
HansellBill. 1999. “Reforming the Reform: Variations on the Mayor-Council Form of Government, Part 2.” Public Management81 (1): 28.
20.
KingCheryl S.FelteyKathryn M.SuselBridget. 1998. “The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review58 (4): 317–26.
21.
KrebsTimothy B.PelisseroJohn P.2010. “Urban Managers and Public Policy: Do Institutional Arrangements Influence Decisions to Initiate Policy?” Urban Affairs Review45 (3): 391–411.
22.
KwonMyungjung J.BerryFrances S.FeiockRichard C.2009. “Understanding the Adoption and Timing of Economic Development Strategies in U.S. Cities Using Innovation and Institutional Analysis.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19:967–88.
23.
LineberryRobert L.FowlerEdmond P.1967. “Reformism and Public Policies in American Cities.” The American Political Science Review61 (3): 701–16.
24.
LubellMark N.FeiockRichard C.Ramirez de la CruzEdgar E.2005. “Political Institutions and Conservation by Local Governments.” Urban Affairs Review40:706–39.
25.
LubellMark N.FeiockRichard C.Ramirez de la CruzEdgar E.2009. “Local Institutions and the Politics of Urban Growth.” American Journal of Political Science53 (3): 649–65.
26.
MaserSteven M.1998. “Constitutions as Relational Contracts: Explaining Procedural Safeguards in Municipal Charters.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory8 (4): 527–64.
27.
NelsonKimberly L.SvaraJames H.2010. “Adaptation of Models Versus Variations in Form: Classifying Structures of City Government.” Urban Affairs Review45 (4): 544–62.
28.
NelsonKimberly L.SvaraJames H.2012. “Form of Government Still Matters: Fostering Innovation in U.S. Municipal Governments.” The American Review of Public Administration42 (3): 257–81.
29.
OakersonRonald J.ParksRoger B.1989. “Local Government Constitutions: A Different View of Metropolitan Areas.” The American Review of Public Administration19 (4): 279–93.
30.
OstromElinor. 1986. “An Agenda for the Study of Institutions.” Public Choice48 (1): 3–25.
OstromElinorParksRoger B.WhitakerGordon P.1974. “Defining and Measuring Structural Variations in Intergovernmental Arrangements.” Publius4 (4): 87–108.
33.
OstromVincent. 1976. “The American Experiment in Constitutional Choice.” Public Choice27 (1): 1–12.
34.
OstromVincent. 1982. “A Forgotten Tradition: The Constitutional Level of Analysis.” In Missing Elements in Political Inquiry: Logic and Levels of Analysis, edited by GillespieJ. A.ZinnesD. A., 237–52. Beverly Hills: Sage.
35.
OstromVincent. 1991. The Meaning of American Federalism: Constituting a Self-governing Society. San Francisco: ICS Press.
36.
SchieslMartin J.1977. The Politics of efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America, 1880-1920. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
37.
SearleJohn R.1969. Speech Acts: An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
38.
SiddikiSabaBasurtoXavierWeibleChristopher M.2012. “Using the Institutional Grammar Tool to Understand Regulatory Compliance: The Case of Colorado Aquaculture.” Regulation & Governance6 (2): 167–88.
39.
SiddikiSabaWeibleChristopher M.BasurtoXavierCalanniJohn. 2011. “Dissecting Policy Designs: An Application of the Institutional Grammar Tool.” Policy Studies Journal39 (1): 79–103.
40.
TeodoroManuel. 2013. “Taming Munro’s Hydra: Institutional Dimensions of Governance.”
41.
YangKaifengPandeySanjay. 2011. “Further Dissecting the Black Box of Citizen Participation: When Does Citizen Involvement Lead to Good Outcomes?” Public Administration Review71 (6): 880–89.
