The author reports on the current status of cities in the devolving federal system and the resulting implications for city politics. In particular, he examines the strength of the fiscal link between the federal government and municipal governments and the implications of growing interest in federal devolution for city government. He concludes by arguing that growing local fiscal and administrative self-reliance create pressures on local politicians to focus on public management skills rather than on the pursuit of social and racial agendas that were the focus two decades ago. The result is a deep change in the moral tenor of city politics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations . 1994. Significant features of fiscal federalism, 1994. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
2.
Bahl, R. , J. Martinez, D. Sjoquist, and L. Williams. 1991. The fiscal conditions of U.S. cities at the beginning of the 1990s. Paper presented at the Urban Institute Conference on Big City Governance and Fiscal Choices, Southern California University, Los Angeles, June.
3.
Barras, J. R.1996. From symbolism to substance: The rise of America's new generation of black political leaders. New Democrat8 (November-December): 19-22.
4.
Burke, V. 1996. New welfare law: Comparison of the new block grant program with Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, 26 August.
5.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities . 1996 (22 March). The NGA Medicaid Proposal will shift costs onto local governments. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
Chernick, H. , and A. Reschovsky. 1997. Urban fiscal problems: Coordinating actions among governments. In The urban crisis: Linking research to action, edited by B. Weisbrod and J. Worthy, 131-176. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.
7.
Cities discover federalism . 1995. The Wall Street Journal, 8 December.
8.
Clark, T. N.1994. Race and class versus the New Political Culture. In Urban Innovation, edited by T. N. Clark, 21-78. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Clarke, S. , and G. Gaile. 1989. Moving toward entrepreneurial economic development policies: Opportunities and barriers. Policy Studies Journal17 (spring): 574-598.
10.
Eggers, W. D.1993. City lights: America's boldest mayors. Policy Review (summer): 67-74.
11.
Finder, A.1996. Welfare clients outnumber jobs they might fill. The New York Times, 25 August.
12.
A genuine new democrat . 1996. The Wall Street Journal, 21 March.
13.
Gurwitt, R.1994. Indianapolis and the Republican future. Governing7 (February): 24-28.
14.
Gurwitt, R.1995. The trials of Rudy Giuliani. Governing8 (June): 23-27.
15.
Gurwitt, R.1996. Detroit dresses for business. Governing8 (April): 38-42.
16.
Jackson, C. , and D. Wilson. 1996. Service delivery in Detroit, Michigan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.
17.
Ladd, H.1994. Big-city finances. In Big-city politics, governance, and fiscal constraints, edited by G. Peterson, 201-266. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
18.
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders . 1968. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. New York: Bantam.
19.
Osborne, D.1992. John Norquist and the Milwaukee experiment. Governing5 (November): 63.
20.
Pagano, M. , J. Lobenhofer, and A. Dudas. 1996. Cities and the changing federal system: Estimating the impacts of the Contract with America. Department of Political Science, Miami University of Ohio. Typescript.
21.
Peirce, N.1993. Motor City's "Mayor Realtor."National Journal, 18 December, 3013.
22.
Rapp, D.1994. A program for Billy Yeager. Governing7 (July): 80.
23.
Sack, K.1996. Mayor finds old issue emerging in new way. The New York Times, 15 July.
24.
Smallwood, D. , B. Kuhn, K. Hanson, S. Vogel, and J. Blaylock. 1995. Economic effects of refocusing national food-assistance efforts. Food Review18 (January-April): 2-12.
25.
Smith, D. , and K. Leyden. 1996. Exploring the political dimension of privatization: A tale of two cities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.
26.
Sonenshein, R. , E. Schockman, and R. DeLeon. 1996. Urban conservatism in an age of diversity. Paper presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Francisco, California, March.
27.
Stanfield, R.1996. Mayors are the soul of the new machine. National Journal28 (24 August): 1801-1802.
28.
Stegman, M. 1996. Speech presented at Rutgers University, Princeton, NJ, 28 February.
29.
Super, D. , S. Parrott, S. Steinmetz, and C. Mann. 1996. The new welfare law. Policy brief. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
30.
U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) . 1994. The federal budget and the cities. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31.
U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) . 1995-1997. Funding levels for key municipal programs. Annual releases. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
U.S. Government Accounting Office . 1996. Community development: Status of urban empowerment zones. Report to the chair of the Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December.
33.
Wallin, B. 1996. Federal retrenchment and state-local response: Lessons from the past. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 30 August.
34.
Weir, M. 1996. Big cities confront the New Federalism. Paper presented at Columbia University, New York, 12 April.
