Public Management in Rural Local Governments: An Assessment of Institutional Differences and Implications

Abstract

Rural America often is portrayed in one of two ways. The first recalls quintessential American main streets—safe, friendly, and situated in picturesque landscapes. The second depicts empty storefronts, public health crises, and resentment toward change. Within this complex picture of rural life, however, are municipalities that must be managed. This research examines the use of a professional administrator by rural communities and the degree to which the position is correlated with public expenditures. Results indicate that use of a professional administrator is correlated with population, partisanship, education, and wealth, but its effect on expenditures appears limited.

Keywords

rural local governments professional administrator public management public expenditures

Discussions of rural America, whether in the media or in academic research, often are framed by two seemingly incompatible perceptions (Catlaw and Stout 2016; Folz and French 2005). The first generally evokes thoughts of picturesque rolling fields, safe communities, friendly neighbors, and a slower pace of life. In contrast, the second depicts antiquated and sometimes hostile attitudes toward change, entrenched political polarization, limited employment opportunities, and main streets that consist of nothing but long-shuttered retail stores and restaurants. More recently, a flurry of studies and media reports have highlighted the latter by painting an increasingly grim picture of the problems faced by rural America. Crises of addiction (van Vlaanderen 2018), suicide (Maciag 2018), and poverty (Booker 2018) are growing, while access to higher education (Hanford and Baumhardt 2017), quality health care (Warshaw 2017), and other supportive services is severely limited. In one assessment, Conn (2017) argues, “rural America has become the new inner-city.”

Within this complex and dynamic picture of rural life, however, are local governments that provide services on a daily basis. Permits are issued, potholes are filled, elections are administered, and challenges are met to the degree expertise and resources allow (Brown 1980). Nonetheless, the state of public management in rural localities is relatively unknown. Few studies have systemically examined this subset of local governments specifically. Of those that have, there is agreement about the unique nature of these communities, the significant gap in existing scholarship, and the importance of additional research (Catlaw and Stout 2016; Folz and French 2005; Trautman 2016). This is particularly important because roughly one in five people in the United States continue to live in rural areas—nearly sixty million individuals (Ratcliffe et al. 2016).

As the challenges facing rural local governments increasingly mirror those of larger metropolitan areas, a greater understanding of public management in these communities is needed. It is especially important to better understand variations in fundamental institutions and management practices and the potential implications of differences. In short, what does public management look like in rural communities, and to what degree, if any, does it matter?

As an initial effort to examine public administration in these areas, this research addresses one of the most fundamental institutional differences among local governments—the use of a professional public administrator. Although research on government structure and professional managers more broadly is extensive, scholarship has primarily examined large cities or large samples of local governments. Given the unique nature of rural communities, however, existing research may not be generalizable to this specific subset of local governments (Doungherty, Klase, and Song 1999). As a result, two primary questions guide this research.

What explains the use, or lack thereof, of a professional public administrator by rural local governments?

What are the policy implications, if any, of employing a professional administrator in a rural community?

For the latter, total public expenditures will be the primary policy of interest. To address these questions, data from 332 rural cities and villages in Wisconsin are used.

The following sections summarize relevant literature on rural local governments, provide a brief overview of scholarship on the use and implications of professional public management, explain the data and research methods, and detail the subsequent analyses. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for both academics and practitioners. Although this study represents an initial effort to assess public management within rural local governments, there is strong evidence to indicate that they represent a unique category of local governments that warrants specific and additional attention.

Rural Local Governments

While there have been recent calls for greater research and attention dedicated to small towns and rural America (Catlaw and Stout 2016; Trautman 2016), the fact remains that “small-town government is one of the least researched arenas of governance” (Catlaw and Stout 2016, 225). This is problematic for rural communities, in particular, because “their small populations, low population densities, and isolation from urban influences cause differences in the costs, amount, and quality of public services” (Dougherty, Klase, and Song 1999, 17).

While limited, the scope of research on small local governments has been relatively broad. Attention, for example, has been given to their financial management (Ekstrom 1989), revenue diversification (Carroll and Johnson 2010), rate of citizen participation (DeSantis and Hill 2004), methods of service delivery (Mohr, Deller, and Halstead 2010), and expenditures (Helpap 2017). Additionally, Folz and French (2005) provide a broad assessment of management, decision-making, and service quality. Of particular importance for the research presented here, Folz and Abdelrazek (2009) find a positive correlation between small cities with a professional manager and higher levels of municipal services. Eskridge and French (2011) find a similar relationship between council-manager models of government and total per capita expenditures.

It is important to note, however, that smallness does not necessarily mean rural. There are many examples of local governments with small populations that are, nonetheless, densely populated and located within major metropolitan areas or even immediately adjacent to large cities. In contrast, one of the primary defining characteristics of rural communities is their geographic separation from metropolitan statistical areas (Dougherty, Klase, and Song 1999). When the focus is narrowed to rural communities specifically, the number of existing research efforts is reduced further, and the scope of the work narrows considerably.

The two areas that have received the most attention include financial management and service delivery. Regarding the former, Doughterty, Klase, and Song (1999) find that small and rural communities tend to place more emphasis on public finance issues than on the management of finances more broadly. Additional attention has been given to the budget process, particularly executive preparation (Sokolow and Honadle 1984), and retrenchment policies (MacManus and Pammer 1990). In both instances, the financial practices and policies in rural areas appear to be notably different from those in urban areas. Regarding service delivery, an exploration of alternative methods of delivery in small and rural municipalities is provided by Mohr, Deller, and Halstead (2010), while Koven and Hadwiger (1992) examine the consolidation of rural service delivery and Brunet (2015) highlights the closing of rural police departments. Other scholars have addressed rural public management from a broader perspective (Honadle 1983; Loomis and Beegle 1975; Seroka 1986), but it has been several decades since the topic has been addressed extensively.

While the research questions in each of these studies are different and the data are obtained from communities in a variety of states—Illinois, New Hampshire, Wisconsin (Mohr, Deller, and Halstead 2010), North Carolina (Brunet 2015), West Virginia (Doughterty, Klase, and Song 1999), California (Sokolow and Honadle 1984), Ohio (MacManus and Pammer 1990), and Iowa (Koven and Hadwiger 1992), for example—an underlying theme across the literature is the challenge of limited capacity among rural governments. In short, these governments often are subjected to management and resource constraints that limit their ability to provide adequate services and address community problems. For some rural communities, however, one strategy to address management capacity has been to adopt the council-manager form of government or to hire a professional administrator to oversee the daily operations of the local government.

Professional Public Management

Historically, local governments had the option to select from two primary forms of government—the mayor-council form or the council-manager form. While the defining characteristic of the council-manager form is the presence of a professional manager, the distinction between the two forms has blurred substantially as mayor-council cities have adopted characteristics once unique to council-manager cities (Frederickson and Johnson 2001; Frederickson, Johnson, and Wood 2004). Fundamentally, hybrid or adapted cities will elect an executive and council but also employ an appointed professional administrator or chief administrative officer, though a range of reformed structures is possible (Carr and Karuppusamy 2010; Frederickson and Johnson 2001; Nelson and Svara 2010). The likelihood that a local government will adopt either a council-manager form or an adapted structure has been correlated with numerous community characteristics. Although specific to the council-manager form of government, Choi, Feiock, and Bae (2013) find that Republican ideology and unemployment rate are significant and positively correlated with adoption, while population size and the size of the manufacturing sector are negatively correlated with adoption—though the results vary by the time period under consideration.

Rural localities likely have a lot to gain from adopting these types of structural reforms. For organizations such as the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the benefits are clear. “The professional manager or administrator brings to the communities they serve technical knowledge and experience, academic training, management expertise, and a dedication and commitment to public service” (ICMA 2008, 4). On balance, academic research is equally supportive. When compared to mayor-council governments, the executive in council-manager governments devotes more time to managing their organizations (Newell and Ammons 1987), develops more innovative policies (Moon 2002; Moon and deLeon 2001; Nelson and Svara 2010), produces higher-quality services (Folz and Abdelrazek 2009), and is simply more effective (Svara 2002). In an assessment of small communities, specifically, Folz and Abdelrazek (2009) conclude that, regardless of structural variations, “those communities that are led by a city manager or served by a chief administrative officer in an adaptive form of government appear to provide a higher level of urban services” (p. 568). It should be noted, however, that agreement about the existence and strength of these relationships is not universal within the literature (see, e.g., Moon and Norris 2005).

Within this broader research, one of the most studied aspects of government structure has been its relationship to fiscal policy. Initial research was grounded in the idea that council-manager governments were more efficient because they were less responsive to specific spending demands, which would translate to lower public expenditures (Lineberry and Fowler 1967). Although supported by several related studies (Booms 1966; Chapman and Gorina 2012; Dye and Garcia 1978), the overall body of research indicates a much more muddled relationship. In some cases, research has not found a significant correlation (Carr and Karuppusamy 2010; Deno and Mehay 1987; Jung 2006). In others, reformed governments appear to spend more (Campbell and Turnbull 2003; Craw 2008). Using the adapted cities framework (Frederickson, Johnson, and Wood 2004), Eskridge and French (2011) examine small communities and find support for the latter. “The more administrative a city scores on the political/administrative continuum, the higher the per capita expenditures is likely to become” (p. 351).

Overall, while research on government structure in rural communities is limited, literature on the choice of structure and related implications in local governments more broadly is extensive. Agreement has been elusive in some respects, but the efforts provide an initial foundation on which to build an analysis of rural public management, nonetheless.

Data

Data from rural local governments in Wisconsin are used for this research. For the purposes of this study, a rural local government is defined as any city or village not located in a metropolitan statistical area. In Wisconsin, 332 cities and villages meet this definition.

Although restricting the research to local governments in a single state has the potential to limit the generalizability of the research findings to some extent, there are important advantages. In particular, “limiting the analysis to a single state ensures each city government is subject to the same state statutory environment” (Carr and Karuppusamy 2010, 215), in addition to any other unique, state-specific cultural or economic characteristics. It also follows the approach used in existing research on small and rural governments (Brunet 2015; Doughterty, Klase, and Song 1999; Koven and Hadwiger 1992; MacManus and Pammer 1990; Mohr, Deller, and Halstead 2010; Sokolow and Honadle 1984) and in assessments of government structure (Carr and Karuppusamy 2010; Nollenberger and Simmons 2016). Local governments in Wisconsin, in particular, have been the focus of several additional analyses (Diaz and Green 2001; Helpap 2017; Johnson and Ihrke 2004; Maher and Johnson 2008).

Dependent Variables

Professional Public Administrator

Using data provided by the Wisconsin City/County Management Association, five rural, local governments in Wisconsin have adopted a council-manager form of government. An additional 68 employ a professional administrator, while maintaining a mayor-council form.¹ Given the added management capacity and benefits that both reformed and adapted government structures provide communities (Folz and Abdelrazek 2009; Frederickson, Logan, and Wood 2003), the categories are combined to create a dichotomous measure indicating the presence or absence of a professional public administrator. Using this approach, roughly 22 percent of rural cities and villages in Wisconsin employ a professional administrator.

Total Public Expenditures

To test for policy implications, particularly the effect of professional public management on government expenditures, total public expenditures per capita is used as the dependent variable (Carr and Karuppusamy 2010).² The variable was constructed using fiscal year (FY) 2013 total operating expenditure data from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. On average, rural local governments in Wisconsin spend roughly US$1,000 per resident, though expenditures can range from US$130 per person to nearly US$7,500 per person.

Independent Variables

To explain the use, or lack thereof, of a professional administrator, a number of variables are considered based on their inclusion in existing literature that explores public management, whether in rural communities or more broadly. To examine public expenditures, a similar set of variables is examined, though for different theoretical reasons.

Population and Diversity

Population and racial diversity are included to account for the possibility of greater social cleavages. As population increases, the number and range of unique and competing policy demands also increase (Lineberry and Fowler 1967). Given the outsized role of race on local politics (Kraus 2004), the effect is similar in racially heterogeneous local governments. Since mayor-council cities often are viewed as more responsive to specific constituencies within a community, the expectation is that larger, more diverse rural communities will be less likely to employ a professional manager (Choi, Feiock, and Bae 2013).

With respect to expenditures, larger communities tend to provide a wider array of services and be more supportive of public spending when compared to their smaller counterparts (Rugh and Trounstine 2011). In contrast, racially diverse communities tend to spend less (Alesina, Baqir, and Easterly 1999; Rugh and Trounstine 2011). Racial diversity is measured as the percentage of white residents in a community, and both variables were constructed using U.S. Census data.

Homeownership

In contrast to population and diversity, high rates of homeownership unify community residents because of a shared desire to protect property values (Choi, Feiock, and Bae 2013; Fischel 2001). As a result, high rates of homeownership should positively correlate with the use of a professional manager. Similarly, as an indicator of fiscal stability, higher rates of homeownership should positively correlate with higher public expenditures. Owner-occupied housing unit rates were obtained from U.S. Census data.

Partisan Preferences

Existing literature largely indicates that reformed structures are supported by Republicans, primarily due to the efficiencies in service delivery often associated with professional management (Knott and Miller 1987; Choi, Feiock, and Bae 2013). However, there is a possibility that this relationship may be muted to some degree in the context of small rural communities. Because a professional manager likely represents a significant investment of taxpayer dollars, when viewed as a percentage of a small operating budgeting, Republican communities may be less willing to pay for these additional expenses (Einstein and Kogen 2016). As a result, Republican communities should be somewhat more likely to employ a professional administrator but be less likely to exhibit higher public expenditures more broadly. To account for the partisan preferences of community residents, defined as the percentage of residents who voted for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, ward-level election data were obtained from the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Education

Education, another community characteristic, also is included because citizens with more education often are more aware of the need for additional services in their communities (Rugh and Trounstine 2011). While existing research does not address professional management specifically, it is important to consider this possibility. The expectation is that education will be positively correlated with the use of a professional administrator and higher public expenditures. Education is operationalized as the percentage of residents in a local government with at least a bachelor’s degree. The data were obtained from the U.S. Census.

Fiscal Capacity and Health

Two variables are included to account for fiscal capacity and health. This is particularly important for rural governments because, as indicated above, a professional administrator represents additional personnel costs. These costs can seem particularly large when budgets are limited and the number of staff members employed by a local government is relatively small (Doughterty, Klase, and Song 1999). In short, adequate revenues are needed to support added management capacity. To address revenue capacity, property tax revenue per capita is included. Obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, the expectation is that local governments with greater property tax revenue are more likely to employ a professional administrator. Additionally, challenging economic conditions within a community may lessen the likelihood that it can financially sustain or expand its existing management positions. The unemployment rate, obtained from the U.S. Census, is included to measure this aspect of fiscal health. With respect to expenditures, fiscal capacity and economic health should be positively related to higher public expenditures—similar to homeownership.

County Administrative Capacity

Finally, because of resource constraints, small and rural communities often rely on other governments, such as counties, to provide services they cannot. In some instances, this relationship may involve a formal contract (Mohr, Deller, and Halstead 2010). In others, localities may not feel obligated to provide a service, whether using their own employees or through a contract, because residents can obtain them from another government. For example, counties commonly provide police protection, parks and recreation facilities, animal control, and emergency medical services. Additionally, they generally have much greater administrative capacities than their smaller municipalities. As a result, local governments may not feel the need for greater management capacity if county administrators can be relied upon for informal advice or for the direct provision of certain administrative services.

To account for this possibility, total expenditures on general government functions per capita were calculated for each county in Wisconsin. Obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, the expectation is that cities and villages located in counties with higher administrative expenditures will be less likely to employ their own dedicated, professional public administrator. Similarly, local governments located in counties with higher total public expenditures should spend less than those located in counties with lower total expenditure levels.³

Professional Public Administrator

The presence or absence of a professional administrator is included as the primary independent variable of interest to assess public expenditures. While existing research offers mixed support for a directional expectation, Eskridge and French (2011) address small local governments, specifically. As a result, and reflective of their findings, it is expected that rural governments that employ a professional administrator also will exhibit higher per capita expenditures.

Results

Results that address the first research question are displayed in Table 1. Given the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable, the model is estimated using logistic regression.⁴ Overall, the model fits the data reasonably well. Nearly 37 percent of the variation in the dependent variable is explained by the eight included independent variables. Three of the variables reach statistical significance (p < .05), while a fourth attains significance at the p < .10 level. Regarding the former, population, Democratic vote share, and percent bachelor’s degree are significant and positive correlates of the use of a professional administrator. Stated another way, larger rural communities with more educated and Democratic citizens are more likely to employ a professional administrator than rural communities that are smaller, more Republican, and less educated. Regarding the latter, total property tax revenue per capita also is positively correlated with the use of a professional administrator. Communities with greater revenue capacity are more likely to employ a professional administrator than less wealthy localities. Of the four variables, education and revenue perform as predicted, while population and community partisanship contradict expectations. None of the remaining variables meet standard levels of significance.

Table 1.

Use of a Professional Administrator (Logistic Regression).

	β	SE	P > lzl
Population (log)	1.091	0.203	.000
Percent white population	0.048	0.043	.268
Homeownership	−0.032	0.024	.177
Democratic vote share	5.041	2.195	.022
Percent bachelor’s degree	0.056	0.027	.041
Total property tax revenue (per capita)	0.001	0.001	.083
Unemployment rate	−0.004	0.050	.929
County general government spending (per capita)	−0.000	0.002	.981
Constant	−15.879	5.074	.002
Pseudo R ²	.365
N	332

Note: SE = standard error.

While understanding which rural local governments are more likely to employ a professional administrator is important to furthering our understanding of these communities, it is also important to explore the policy and performance implications associated with greater management capacity. There are many ways in which a professional administrator can potentially improve the organizational performance of a local government (Carr 2015). However, to address the second research question, an initial effort is made to examine one specific aspect of performance—total public expenditures per capita. The results are included in Table 2. Given the continuous nature of the dependent variable in this case, the model is estimated using ordinary least squares regression. While multicollinearity was not a concern, robust standard errors are reported to account for the presence of heteroscedasticity.

Table 2.

FY 2013 Total Public Expenditures (Ordinary Least Squares Regression).

	β	SE	p > ltl
Administrator	−52.778	137.866	.702
Population (log)	26.307	30.001	.381
Percent white population	3.925	6.881	.569
Homeownership	−4.979	3.654	.174
Democratic vote share	1,191.819	317.842	.000
Percent bachelor’s degree	−1.713	5.700	.764
Total property tax revenue (per capita)	1.235	0.162	.000
Unemployment rate	2.255	4.855	.643
Total county expenditures (per capita)	0.038	0.132	.771
Constant	437.920	669.349	.513
Adjusted R ²	.469
N	332

Note: Robust standard errors are reported. SE = standard error.

Once again, the model fits the data quite well. Approximately 47 percent of the variation in the dependent variable is explained by the nine included independent variables. Two of the variables reach statistical significance (p < .05). As expected, Democratic vote share and total property tax revenue per capita are positively correlated with total public expenditures. Communities with a larger percentage of Democratic voters and greater fiscal capacity are more likely to have higher public expenditures per capita when compared to communities that are more Republican and less wealthy. The remaining seven independent variables did not approach standard levels of statistical significance. Notably, this includes the variable included to account for the presence of a professional administrator. Contrary to expectations, it appears that, at least in rural communities, expenditures are not related to the use of a professional administrator.

Conclusion

Expectations

Overall, both models performed reasonably well and, when taken together, provide additional insight into the management of rural local governments. In doing so, the results confirm a number of expectations. For example, the use of a professional administrator is positively correlated with education and revenue capacity, and as a consequence, it appears the importance of these conditions can be generalized from local governments more broadly to rural local localities.

In contrast, several variables are significant but not in the expected direction, and other prominent variables within existing literature do not reach standard levels of statistical significance here. Population is significant, for example, but positively related to the use of a professional administrator. However, even the largest rural communities in the data set are still quite small (population < 35,000), which means that they likely do not have many social cleavages despite their “large size.” In fact, larger communities within this context may actually benefit the most from the potential advantages of employing a professional administrator, thus explaining the positive relationship. Similarly, a diverse population also can create social cleavages (Kraus 2004). While this variable does not attain statistical significance (p = .268), many rural communities simply do not have very diverse populations. On average, the local governments examined here are 95 percent white. With such homogenous populations, the diversity that does exist is not likely to effect governing institutions in rural governments to the extent observed in larger, more diverse communities.

Democratic vote share was significant but not in the expected direction. Existing research points toward a positive relationship between more Republican communities and the use of a professional administrator (Knott and Miller 1987; Choi, Feiock, and Bae 2013). However, given the personnel costs associated with professional administrators, even in small communities, residents with more Republican partisan preferences may be less likely to change from a status quo that also would likely require increased or reallocated expenditures. The potential management and policy benefits of a professional administrator may outweigh such concerns in more progressively minded communities, though a survey of rural residents would be needed to explore this possibility further. In short, these findings suggest there are limitations on the degree to which existing conclusions can be generalized to rural localities, specifically.

In response to the second research question, local governments that are wealthier with more Democratic citizens are more likely to have higher public expenditures. These variables performed as expected, and as a result, it appears the effects of wealth and partisanship on expenditures in small rural communities can be generalized from broader assessments of local governments that, in nearly all cases, include much larger and more urban localities (Einsteain and Kogan 2016; Rugh and Traounstine 2011). However, none of the remaining variables attained statistical significance, and of particular interest, the presence or absence of a professional administrator does not have a statistically significant effect on public expenditures.

In some ways, this finding should not be entirely unexpected. While research on the management and policy benefits of professional administrators, and the council-manager form of government more generally, is mixed to some degree, some of the most contradictory conclusions are associated with public expenditures. While the hypothesis adopted in this case reflects the findings of Eskridge and French (2011), it appears the null results match more closely with the conclusions of Carr and Karuppusamy (2010), Deno and Mehay (1987), and others. The presence of a professional administrator, and the additional management capacity the position represents, does not affect public expenditures in the rural communities assessed above.

Implications

These findings have implications for local government scholars as well as for those who reside in, and manage, rural local governments. For academics, the research provides additional insight into a subset of local governments that has not received significant attention, despite growing management and policy challenges. Taken together, the results provide an initial indication of which variables can be generalized from studies of much larger, urban communities to their smaller and more rural counterparts. Some variables are robust across community size and geographic location, while others perform differently in rural areas. Partisanship, for example, is an important and robust correlate of institutional structure and policy choices, even in rural communities. In contrast, the unique size and demographics of these communities constrain the role of population and diversity. This research also directly addresses existing conversations about the potential management and policy benefits of professional public management. Given that the scope of this research is limited to public expenditures in rural governments, it would be inappropriate to generalize beyond these conditions. Nonetheless, the results highlight the importance of, and need for, continued research on public management strategies and government structure more broadly—particularly in rural municipalities.

For citizens, elected officials, and public managers in rural areas, this research provides a picture of public management in communities that look like theirs. For communities considering additional management capacity, the results illustrate the types of local governments that are most likely to employ a professional public administrator. Communities that are larger, more Democratic, educated, and wealthier may be more willing to expand their management capacity by hiring a professional administrator. For communities without these characteristics, the addition may be more difficult. It is important to note, however, that the results also indicate that this position does not appear to effect public expenditures. This is not to say that the numerous other potential benefits of professional public administrators would not be realized in rural communities. Rather, these communities should simply be cautious about basing their decision to hire an administrator solely on the need or desire to alter expenditures. Additional research will be needed to directly assess the other benefits of professional public management within a rural context.

Future Research

The current state of rural America is dynamic and complex. Rural communities can be viewed as idyllic locations defined by relative safety, stability, and a slower pace of life. At the same time, employment opportunities generally are limited, public health problems are growing, and at least some change is needed to adjust to broader cultural and economic realities. Often lost within these larger narratives, however, are the local governments that provide needed services to their residents and attempt to address public policy problems as resources permit. This research represents an initial effort to refocus attention toward this subset of local governments. Based on rural municipalities in Wisconsin, the results indicate management capacity, represented by the use of a professional administrator, is closely related to several community characteristics that include population, partisanship, education, and wealth. The implications of using a professional administrator in rural communities are less clear, however.

There are significant opportunities to expand research on rural local governments. For example, existing scholarship on public management continues to focus largely on communities with different government structures, primarily council-manager or mayor-council forms. However, the communities examined here almost universally use an adapted form, where the professional administrator is situated within a mayor-council structure. As such, additional efforts should be made to explore a larger number of rural local governments that have adopted the council-manager form of government. This would provide even more insight into a largely unexplored group of local governments, and it also would help determine whether the results presented here can be generalized to fully reformed governments.

Other potential management and policy benefits of professional public management also should be examined within the context of rural local governments. This research focused exclusively on public expenditures, but as the ICMA and existing academic research indicates, there are a wide array of potential benefits associated with adopting a council-manager form of government or employing a professional administrator (Folz and Abdelrazek 2009; Moon 2002; Moon and deLeon 2001; Newell and Ammons 1987; Svara 2002). However, little is known about the degree to which the presence of a professional administrator can benefit rural local governments, specifically. In short, can the conclusions developed in existing research be generalized to this subset of local governments? Research should examine rural local governments in other states, as well as other types of local governments (e.g., counties, towns).

Finally, given the problems that many rural communities must now confront, often with limited resources, there is a need to determine how these problems are addressed, if at all. While important research has examined service delivery options in small and rural communities (Mohr, Deller, and Halstead 2010), additional attention should be given to the services needed to address the unique problems confronting rural areas. Overall, despite generally small populations and geographic separation from large metropolitan areas, rural local governments work to provide services and address community problems in the same ways as their larger, more urban counterparts. As a result, understanding the management practices of these governments is no less important than understanding the practices of others.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

David J. Helpap

Notes

References

Alesina

Alberto

Baqir

Reza

Easterly

William

. 1999. Public goods and ethnic divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114:1243–84.

Booker

Brakkton

. 2018. Report: Rural poverty in American is “an emergency.” National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2018/05/31/615578001/reportruralpoverty-in-america-is-an-emergency (accessed September 18, 2018).

Booms

Bernard H.

1966. City governmental form and public expenditure levels. National Tax Journal 19:187–99.

Brown

Anthony

. 1980. Technical assistance to rural communities: Stopgap or capacity building? Public Administration Review 40:18–23.

Brunet

James R.

2015. Goodbye Mayberry: The Curious Demise of rural police departments in North Carolina. Administration & Society 47:320–37.

Campbell

Rebecca J.

Turnbull

Geoffrey K.

. 2003. On government structure and spending: The effects of management form and separation of powers. Urban Studies 40:23–34.

Carr

Jered B.

2015. What have we learned about the performance of council-manager government? A review and synthesis of the research. Public Administration Review 75:673–89.

Carr

Jered B.

Karuppusamy

Shanthi

. 2010. Reassessing the link between city structure and fiscal policy: Is the problem poor measures of government structure? The American Review of Public Administration 40:209–28.

Carroll

Deborah A.

Johnson

Terri

. 2010. Examining small town revenues: To what extent are they diversified? Public Administration Review 70:223–35.

10.

Catlaw

Thomas J.

Stout

Margaret

. 2016. Governing small-town America today: The promise and dilemma of dense networks. Public Administration Review 76:225–29.

11.

Chapman

Jeffrey

Gorina

Evgenia

. 2012. Effects of the form of government and property tax limits on local finance in the context of revenue and expenditure simultaneity. Public Budgeting & Finance 32:19–45.

12.

Choi

Cheon Geun

Feiock

Richard C.

Bae

Jungah

. 2013. The adoption and abandonment of council-manager government. Public Administration Review 73:727–36.

13.

Conn

Steven

. 2017. Is rural America the new inner city? Huffington Post. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rural-american-the-new-inner-city_us_58c5961ce4b0a797c1d39e24 (accessed September 18, 2018).

14.

Craw

Michael

. 2008. Taming the local leviathan: Institutional and economic constraints on municipal budgets. Urban Affairs Review 43:663–90.

15.

Deno

Kevin T.

Mehay

Stephen L.

. 1987. Municipal management structure and fiscal performance: Do city managers make a difference? Southern Economic Journal 53:627–42.

16.

DeSantis

Victor S.

Hill

David

. 2004. Citizen participation in local politics: Evidence from New England town meetings. State and Local Government Review 36:166–73.

17.

Diaz

Daniel

Green

Gary Paul

. 2001. Fiscal stress and growth management effort in Wisconsin cities, villages, and towns. State and Local Government Review 33:7–22.

18.

Dougherty

Michael John

Klase

Kenneth A.

Song

Soo Geun

. 1999. The needs and financial problems of small and rural localities: The case of West Virginia. Public Budgeting & Finance 19:16–30.

19.

Dye

Thomas R.

Garcia

John A.

. 1978. Structure, function, and policy in American cities. Urban Affairs Quarterly 14:103–22.

20.

Einstein

Katherine Levine

Kogan

Vladimir

. 2016. Pushing the city limits: Policy responsiveness in municipal government. Urban Affairs Review 52:3–32.

21.

Ekstrom

Carl D.

1989. Budgetary practices in smaller units of government. Public Budgeting & Finance 9:76–82.

22.

Eskridge

Robert D.

Edward French

. 2011. Using the adapted cities framework to evaluate per capita expenditures in small U.S. municipalities. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 23:338–60.

23.

Fischel

William A.

2001. The Homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

24.

Folz

David H.

Abdelrazek

Reem

. 2009. Professional management and service levels in small U.S. communities. The American Review of Public Administration 39:553–69.

25.

Folz

David H.

French

Edward P.

. 2005. Managing America’s small communities: People, politics, and performance. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

26.

Frederickson

George H.

Logan

Brett

Wood

Curtis

. 2003. Municipal reform in mayor-council cities: A well-kept secret. State and Local Government Review 35:7–14.

27.

Frederickson

George H.

Johnson

Gary Alan

. 2001. The adapted American city: A study of institutional dynamics. Urban Affairs Review 36:872–84.

28.

Frederickson

George H.

Johnson

Gary Alan

Wood

Curtis

. 2004. The changing structure of American cities: A study of the diffusion of innovation. Public Administration Review 64:320–30.

29.

Hanford

Emily

Baumhardt

Alex

. 2017. Rural America’s neglected higher-education problem. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/12/rural-americas-higher-educationproblem/547325 (accessed September 19, 2018).

30.

Helpap

David J.

2017. Assessing public expenditures in small towns: Beyond roads and fire engines. State and Local Government Review 49:75–86.

31.

Honadle

Beth Walter

. 1983. Public administration in rural areas and small jurisdictions: A guide to the literature. New York: Garland.

32.

International City/County Management Association. 2008. Professional local government management [Brochure] . Washington, DC: ICMA.

33.

Johnson

Terri

Ihrke

Douglas M.

. 2004. Determinants of conflict on Wisconsin town boards. State and Local Government Review 36:103–17.

34.

Jung

Changhoon

. 2006. Forms of governments and spending on common municipal functions: A longitudinal approach. International Review of Administrative Sciences 72:363–76.

35.

Knott

Jack H.

Miller

Gary

. 1987. Reforming bureaucracy: The politics of institutional choice. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

36.

Koven

Steven G.

Hadwiger

Don F.

. 1992. Consolidation of rural service delivery. Public Productivity & Management Review 15:315–28.

37.

Kraus

Neil

. 2004. The significance of race in urban politics: The limitations of regime theory. Race and Society 7:95–111.

38.

Lineberry

Robert L.

Fowler

Edmund P.

. 1967. Reformism and public policies in American cities. American Political Science Review 61:701–16.

39.

Loomis

Charles Price

Beegle

J. Allan

. 1975. Strategy for rural change. New York: Schenkman.

40.

Maciag

Mike

. 2018. Suicide rate highest in decades but worst in rural America. Governing. http://www.governing.com/topics/health-humanservices/gov-suicide-ratedeaths-census-rural.html (accessed September 20, 2018).

41.

MacManus

Susan A.

Pammer

William J.

. 1990. Cutbacks in the country: Retrenchment in rural villages, townships, and counties. Public Administration Quarterly 14:302–23.

42.

Maher

Craig S.

Johnson

Terri

. 2008. Testing for fiscal illusion in Wisconsin towns. International Journal of Public Administration 31:1513–31.

43.

Mohr

Robert

Deller

Steven C.

Halstead

John M.

. 2010. Alternative methods of service delivery in small and rural municipalities. Public Administration Review 70:894–905.

44.

Moon

M. Jae

. 2002. The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review 62:424–33.

45.

Moon

M. Jae

DeLeon

Peter

. 2001. Municipal reinvention: Managerial values and diffusion among municipalities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11:327–52.

46.

Moon

M. Jae

Norris

Donald F.

. 2005. Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level. Information Systems Journal 15:43–60.

47.

Nelson

Kimberly L.

Svara

James H.

. 2010. Adaptation of models versus variations in form: Classifying structures of city government. Urban Affairs Review 45:544–62.

48.

Newell

Charldean

Ammons

David N.

. 1987. Role emphases of city managers and other municipal executives. Public Administration Review 47:246–53.

49.

Nollenberger

Karl

Simmons

James

. 2016. Municipal government structure in Wisconsin: Does form matter? Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs 2:82–100.

50.

Ratcliffe

Michael

Burd

Charlynn

Holder

Kelly

Fields

Alison

. 2016. Defining rural at the US Census Bureau: American community survey and geography brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Census.

51.

Rugh

Jacob S.

Trounstine

Jessica

. 2011. The provision of local public goods in diverse communities: Analyzing municipal bond elections. Journal of Politics 73:1038–50.

52.

Seroka

Jim

. 1986. Rural public administration: Problems and prospects. New York: Greenwood Press.

53.

Sokolow

Alvin D.

Honadle

Beth Walter

. 1984. How rural local governments budget: The alternatives to executive preparation. Public Administration Review 44:373–83.

54.

Svara

James H.

2002. Mayors in the unity of powers context: Effective Leadership in council manager governments. In The future of local government administration: The Hansell symposium, ed. Frederickson

George H.

Nalbandian

John

, 43–57. Washington, DC: ICMA.

55.

Trautman

Rhonda Riherd

. 2016. Small-town policy makers. Public Administration Review 76:221–24.

56.

van Vlaanderen

Zoe

. 2018. What’s behind the addiction crisis in rural America? National Council on Drug Dependence and Alcoholism Inc. https://www.ncadd.org/index.php/blogs/addiction-update/what-s-behind-the-addictioncrisisin-rural-america (accessed September 20, 2018).

57.

Warshaw

Robin

. 2017. Health disparities affect millions in rural U.S. communities. Association of American Medical Colleges News. Accessed September 21, 2017. https://news.aamc.org/patient-care/article/health-disparities-affect-millions-rural-uscommun/.