Advertisement

The Impact of Decentralization on Municipalities: Evidence from the Municipal Home Rule Movement

  • Jessica HennesseyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Public Choice book series (SIPC, volume 39)

Abstract

The municipal home rule movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries decentralized control from the state and gave municipalities the ability to independently draft and adopt a municipal charter. Since not all states adopted home rule, and not all states that adopted home rule did it at the same time, the natural episode presents a rich ground for empirical study. There are several avenues on which to explore the effect of decentralization on outcomes. Previous research has considered the effect of decentralization on expenditures or on types of services provided. In the case of home rule, did the ability for municipalities to write their own charters and determine their own structure and functions result in different outcomes relative to municipalities who were not given the option? As much of the research in fiscal federalism deals with decentralization at the federal level, this paper serves as a nice complement as it investigates decentralization at a sub-national level and thus holds constant important country-level variables. Preliminary evidence seems to indicate that home rule had an effect both on municipal debt and on the composition of the municipal population.

References

  1. ACIR (1993) Local Government Autonomy. Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Benton JE (2002) County service delivery: Does government structure matter? Public Administration Review 62(4):471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besley T, Case A (2000) Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies. Economic Journal 110(467):672–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brennan G, Buchanan JM, et al (1980) The Power to Tax: Analytic Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunch J (2014) Does local autonomy enhance representation? The influence of home rule on county expenditures. State and Local Government Review 46(2):106–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark TN (1968) Community structure, decision-making, budget expenditures, and urban renewal in 51 American communities. American Sociological Review 33(4):576–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox K (1977) Better city government: Innovation in American urban politics, 1850-1937. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall CP (1906) Constitutional and legislative limitations of the home rule charter in minnesota. Michigan Law Review 5(1):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hennessey J (2016) The adoption of constitutional home rule: A test of endogenous policy decentralization. Eastern Economic Journal 42(3):441–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hofstadter R (1955) The age of reform: From Bryan to FDR. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Holcombe RG, Lacombe DJ (2004) Factors underlying the growth of local government in the 19th century United States. Public Choice 120(3-4):359–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kimball E (1922) State and Municipal Government in the United States. Ginn and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Krane D, Rigos PN, Hill M (2001) Home rule in America: A fifty-state handbook. Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Lineberry RL, Fowler EP (1967) Reformism and public policies in American cities. American Political Science Review 61(3):701–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McBain HL (1916) The Law and the Practice of Municipal Home Rule. Columbia University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oates WE (1988) On the measurement of congestion in the provision of local public goods. Journal of Urban Economics 24(1):85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oberholtzer EP (1893) Home rule for our American cities. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 3(6):68–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Percival GL, Johnson M, Neiman M (2009) Representation and local policy: Relating county-level public opinion to policy outputs. Political Research Quarterly 62(1):164–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sass TR (1991) The choice of municipal government structure and public expenditures. Public Choice 71(1-2):71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Turnbull GK, Geon G (2006) Local government internal structure, external constraints and the median voter. Public Choice 129(3-4):487–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wallis JJ (2000) American government finance in the long run: 1790 to 1990. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(1):61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zimmerman JF (2008) Contemporary American Federalism: The Growth of National Power. SUNY Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Furman UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations