Urban scholars have paid little or no attention to ramifications of the way the U.S. Senate is structured. Because of the Connecticut Compromise, the 26 smallest states with less than 18% of the U.S. population have an institutional lock on, and a potential veto over, basic public policies and all legislation going through Congress. Because small states are generally less urban, the Senate heavily underrepresents central cities and ethnic minorities and massively overrepresents suburban and rural/small-town residents, as well as the inhabitants of Mountain, New England, and West North Central regions. Moreover, federal grants unduly support not only small, less urban states but also tax-rich states.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1993-1994 official congressional directory: 103rd Congress.1993. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
2.
Atlas, C. M. , T. W. Gilligan, R. J. Hendershott, and M. A. Zupan. 1993. Slicing the federal net spending pie: Who wins, who loses, and why. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Western Economics Association International (WEAI), Lake Tahoe, CA, June.
3.
Reid, J. P.1989. The concept of representation in the age of the American revolution. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
4.
Rivlin, A. M.1992. Reviving the American dream: The economy, the states, and the federal government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
Stephens, G. R.1985. New Federalism by default, little OPEC states, and fiscal Darwinism. In Public policy across states and communities, edited by D. R. Judd. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
6.
Stephens, G. R. , and K. T. Parsons. 1989. Rich states, poor states: An addendum. State and Local Government Review21:2.
7.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) . 1981. Studies in comparative fiscal Federalism: Australia, Canada, the United States and West Germany. Report no. M-130. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) . 1993. RTS 1991: State revenue capacity and effort. Report no. M-137. Washington, DC: Author.
9.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) . 1994. Characteristics of federal grant-in-aid programs: Grants funded in 1993. Report no. M-188. Washington, DC: Author.
10.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1953. Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
11.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1961. Historical statistics of the United States: Colonial times to 1957. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
12.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1990. Government finances. Annual GF Series, no. GF/90-5. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
13.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1991a. Consolidated federal funds reports. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
14.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1991b. Government finances. Annual GF Series, no. GF/91-5. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
15.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1991c. State and metropolitan area data book 1991. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
16.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1992. Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
17.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1993. Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
18.
Zagarri, R.1987. The politics of size: Representation in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
