This exploratory study of 142 U.S. municipalities identifies the factors that determine the scope of municipal discretion. The author finds total municipal discretion is positively correlated with the quality of the relationships between municipal and state officials, population, and education but negatively correlated with population growth. Municipalities located in the north and west have higher total municipal discretion scores than eastern municipalities. The author also finds that structural, functional, and fiscal discretion as well as municipal success/influence with state officials are individually or jointly associated with education level, population growth, population, form of government, region, political culture, local-state relational quality, and state fiscal peril.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1981. Measuring Local Discretionary Authority. Washington: USAICR, M-13.
2.
BarronDavid J. 2003. “Reclaiming Home Rule.”Harvard Law Review116: 348–2,386.
3.
BermanDavid R. 2003. Local Government and the States: Autonomy, Politics, and Policy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
4.
BermanDavid R.MartinLawrence L. 1988. “State-Local Relations: An Examination of Local Discretion.” Public Administration Review48:637–41.
5.
BreunigChristianKoskiChris. 2004. Tidal wave of change in a sea of stability: A comparative analysis of public budgeting at the state level. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in Chicago, Illinois.
6.
DixonW. J.1992. BMDP Statistical Software Manual: Release 7 (Vols. 1–2). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
7.
ElazarDaniel J.1994. The American Mosaic: The Impact of Space, Time, and Culture on American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
8.
FisherRonald C.2007. State and Local Public Finance (Third Edition). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
9.
FredericksonH. GeorgeJohnsonGary AlanWoodCurtis H.. 2004. The Adapted City: Institutional Dynamics and Structural Change. M. E. Sharpe.
10.
GoslingJames J.1992. Budgetary Politics in American Governments. New York, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
11.
HirschWerner Z.1986. Revenue limitation measures and their effects on municipal bonds: The case of California municipalities. In Public finance and public debt: Proceedings of the 40th Congress of the international institute of public finance. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
12.
JimenezBenedict Salazar. 2009. “Fiscal Stress and the Allocation of Expenditure Responsibilities between State and Local Governments: An Exploratory Study.” State and Local Government Review41: 81–94.
13.
KnightBrian G.2000. “Supermajority Voting Requirements for Tax Increases: Evidence from the States.”Journal of Public Economics76:41–67.
14.
KraneDaleRigosPlaton N.MelvinB.HillJr. 2001. Home Rule in America: A fifty-State Handbook. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.
15.
LeeDonSemuelsAlana. 2010. More Living in Poverty. The Chicago Tribune, September17, Section 1, 17.
16.
LinerE. Blaine. 1989. “Sorting Out State-Local Relations.”. In A Decade of Devolution: Prospectives on State-Local Relations, edited byBlaine LinerE.. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
17.
LowryRobert C.AltJames E.2001. “A Visible Hand? Bond Markets, Political Parties, Balanced Budget Laws, and State Government Debt.”Economics and Politics13: 49–72.
18.
LynchThomas D.1995. Public Budgeting in America (Fourth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
MaherCraig S.StevenDeller. 2010. Is it the Economy Stupid? Testing the Effects of Economic Condition, Management Structure, and TELs on Municipal Financial Conditions. Paper presented at the annual ABFM Conference held in Omaha, Nebraska, October7–9.
20.
NiceDavid C.1998. “The Intergovernmental Setting of State-Local Relations.”. In Governing Partners: State-Local Relations in the U.S., edited byRussellH. Hanson, 17–36. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
21.
PedhazurElazar J.1997. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research (Third edition). Harcourt College Publishers.
22.
Pew Center on the States. 2009. Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril. Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States. www.pewcenteronthestates.org.
23.
PoterbaJamesRuebenKim. 1999. “State Fiscal Institutions and the U.S. Municipal Bond Market.”. In Fiscal Institutions and Fiscal Performance, edited byPoterbaJamesvon HagenJurgen, 181–207. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
ReschovskyAndrew. 2003. The Implication of State Fiscal Stress for Local Governments. Prepared for The Urban Institute. Washington, DC. (April3)
25.
ReschovskyAndrew. 2004. “The Impact of State Government Fiscal Crises on Local Governments and Schools.”State and Local Government Review36:86–102.
26.
RichardsonJesse J.Jr.MeghanZimmerman GoughRobertPuentes. 2003. Is Home Rule the Answer? Clarifying the Influence of Dillon’s Rule on Growth Management. A discussion paper prepared for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
27.
StephensG. Ross. 1974. “State Centralization and the Erosion of Local Autonomy.”Journal of Politics36:44–76.
28.
TempleJudy A.1996. “Community Composition and Voter Support for Tax Limitations: Evidence from Home-Rule Elections.”Southern Economic Journal62:1002–16.
29.
WagnerGary A.2004. “The Bond Market and Fiscal Institutions: Have Budget Stabilization Funds Reduced State Borrowing Costs?”National Tax Journal57:785–804.
30.
WhiteJames R.1998. State Supermajority Requirements: GGD-98–90R. GAO Reports (June2). Government Accountability Office (GAO)
31.
CurtisWood. 2010. “Understanding the Consequences of Municipal Discretion.”American Review of Public Administration. Prepublished November 3, doi:10.1177/0275074010381111.
32.
ZimmermanJoseph F.1983. State-Local Relations: A Partnership Approach. New York: Praeger.
33.
ZimmermanJoseph F.1995. State-Local Relations: A Partnership Approach. New York: Praeger.
