Pragmatic Municipalism: U.S. Local Government Responses to Fiscal Stress
This article updates cutback management theory and challenges austerity urbanism theory by showing that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism—protecting services with a balanced response to fiscal stress. Using a 2017 national survey of 2,341 U.S. municipalities and counties, the authors...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Public administration review 2021-05, Vol.81 (3), p.389-398 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 398 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 389 |
container_title | Public administration review |
container_volume | 81 |
creator | Warner, Mildred E. Aldag, Austin M. Kim, Yunji |
description | This article updates cutback management theory and challenges austerity urbanism theory by showing that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism—protecting services with a balanced response to fiscal stress. Using a 2017 national survey of 2,341 U.S. municipalities and counties, the authors identify four responses—no specific action, cuts, revenue supplements, and deferrals. Structural equation models show that cuts are higher in places with older infrastructure and more unemployment but not in places with more poverty. Supplemental responses are higher in places with professional management and higher education. Deferrals are higher in places with more debt but lower in places with older infrastructure. Localities with less fiscal stress take no specific action. Most governments combine cuts, supplements, and deferrals; this balanced response is associated with more fiscal stress, more citizen engagement, and higher levels of unionization. These results show that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism, not austerity urbanism, when responding to fiscal stress. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/puar.13196 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2527981828</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A661981876</galeid><sourcerecordid>A661981876</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4016-8e5ea839a7be1d1eb36aaf9dc9a18eed1648ce517e7d9a1b6da8fee753f1fb993</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90N9LwzAQB_AgCs7pi39BQfBBaM01bZr6NobbhIljc88hba8jo79MWnX_va312bwc5D53B19CboF60L_HplPGAwYxPyMTCAPqch_oOZlQypjLWOhfkitrj5SCD4GYkNXGqEOpWp06r12lU92oQtvyydl7O89Z16kqnGX9iaYqsWqdLdqmrixap62dhbZDe9catPaaXOSqsHjzV6dkv3h-n6_c9dvyZT5bu2lAgbsCQ1SCxSpKEDLAhHGl8jhLYwUCMQMeiBRDiDDK-q-EZ0rkiFHIcsiTOGZTcjfubUz90aFt5bHuTNWflH7oR7EA4Yte3Y_qoAqUukrrqsXv9qA6a6WccQ4DjHgPH0aYmtpag7lsjC6VOUmgcohUDpHK30h7DCP-0gWe_pFys59tx5kf0214vw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2527981828</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pragmatic Municipalism: U.S. Local Government Responses to Fiscal Stress</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Warner, Mildred E. ; Aldag, Austin M. ; Kim, Yunji</creator><creatorcontrib>Warner, Mildred E. ; Aldag, Austin M. ; Kim, Yunji</creatorcontrib><description>This article updates cutback management theory and challenges austerity urbanism theory by showing that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism—protecting services with a balanced response to fiscal stress. Using a 2017 national survey of 2,341 U.S. municipalities and counties, the authors identify four responses—no specific action, cuts, revenue supplements, and deferrals. Structural equation models show that cuts are higher in places with older infrastructure and more unemployment but not in places with more poverty. Supplemental responses are higher in places with professional management and higher education. Deferrals are higher in places with more debt but lower in places with older infrastructure. Localities with less fiscal stress take no specific action. Most governments combine cuts, supplements, and deferrals; this balanced response is associated with more fiscal stress, more citizen engagement, and higher levels of unionization. These results show that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism, not austerity urbanism, when responding to fiscal stress.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-3352</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-6210</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/puar.13196</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Austerity policy ; Counties ; Government finance ; Higher education ; Infrastructure ; Local government ; Managed competition ; Polls & surveys ; Poverty ; Stress ; Structural equation modeling ; Unemployment ; Unionization ; Urbanism</subject><ispartof>Public administration review, 2021-05, Vol.81 (3), p.389-398</ispartof><rights>2020 by The American Society for Public Administration</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc.</rights><rights>2021 by The American Society for Public Administration</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4016-8e5ea839a7be1d1eb36aaf9dc9a18eed1648ce517e7d9a1b6da8fee753f1fb993</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4016-8e5ea839a7be1d1eb36aaf9dc9a18eed1648ce517e7d9a1b6da8fee753f1fb993</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fpuar.13196$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fpuar.13196$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Warner, Mildred E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aldag, Austin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Yunji</creatorcontrib><title>Pragmatic Municipalism: U.S. Local Government Responses to Fiscal Stress</title><title>Public administration review</title><description>This article updates cutback management theory and challenges austerity urbanism theory by showing that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism—protecting services with a balanced response to fiscal stress. Using a 2017 national survey of 2,341 U.S. municipalities and counties, the authors identify four responses—no specific action, cuts, revenue supplements, and deferrals. Structural equation models show that cuts are higher in places with older infrastructure and more unemployment but not in places with more poverty. Supplemental responses are higher in places with professional management and higher education. Deferrals are higher in places with more debt but lower in places with older infrastructure. Localities with less fiscal stress take no specific action. Most governments combine cuts, supplements, and deferrals; this balanced response is associated with more fiscal stress, more citizen engagement, and higher levels of unionization. These results show that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism, not austerity urbanism, when responding to fiscal stress.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Austerity policy</subject><subject>Counties</subject><subject>Government finance</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Infrastructure</subject><subject>Local government</subject><subject>Managed competition</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Poverty</subject><subject>Stress</subject><subject>Structural equation modeling</subject><subject>Unemployment</subject><subject>Unionization</subject><subject>Urbanism</subject><issn>0033-3352</issn><issn>1540-6210</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNp90N9LwzAQB_AgCs7pi39BQfBBaM01bZr6NobbhIljc88hba8jo79MWnX_va312bwc5D53B19CboF60L_HplPGAwYxPyMTCAPqch_oOZlQypjLWOhfkitrj5SCD4GYkNXGqEOpWp06r12lU92oQtvyydl7O89Z16kqnGX9iaYqsWqdLdqmrixap62dhbZDe9catPaaXOSqsHjzV6dkv3h-n6_c9dvyZT5bu2lAgbsCQ1SCxSpKEDLAhHGl8jhLYwUCMQMeiBRDiDDK-q-EZ0rkiFHIcsiTOGZTcjfubUz90aFt5bHuTNWflH7oR7EA4Yte3Y_qoAqUukrrqsXv9qA6a6WccQ4DjHgPH0aYmtpag7lsjC6VOUmgcohUDpHK30h7DCP-0gWe_pFys59tx5kf0214vw</recordid><startdate>202105</startdate><enddate>202105</enddate><creator>Warner, Mildred E.</creator><creator>Aldag, Austin M.</creator><creator>Kim, Yunji</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>American Society for Public Administration</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202105</creationdate><title>Pragmatic Municipalism: U.S. Local Government Responses to Fiscal Stress</title><author>Warner, Mildred E. ; Aldag, Austin M. ; Kim, Yunji</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4016-8e5ea839a7be1d1eb36aaf9dc9a18eed1648ce517e7d9a1b6da8fee753f1fb993</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Austerity policy</topic><topic>Counties</topic><topic>Government finance</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Infrastructure</topic><topic>Local government</topic><topic>Managed competition</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Poverty</topic><topic>Stress</topic><topic>Structural equation modeling</topic><topic>Unemployment</topic><topic>Unionization</topic><topic>Urbanism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Warner, Mildred E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aldag, Austin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Yunji</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Public administration review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Warner, Mildred E.</au><au>Aldag, Austin M.</au><au>Kim, Yunji</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pragmatic Municipalism: U.S. Local Government Responses to Fiscal Stress</atitle><jtitle>Public administration review</jtitle><date>2021-05</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>81</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>389</spage><epage>398</epage><pages>389-398</pages><issn>0033-3352</issn><eissn>1540-6210</eissn><abstract>This article updates cutback management theory and challenges austerity urbanism theory by showing that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism—protecting services with a balanced response to fiscal stress. Using a 2017 national survey of 2,341 U.S. municipalities and counties, the authors identify four responses—no specific action, cuts, revenue supplements, and deferrals. Structural equation models show that cuts are higher in places with older infrastructure and more unemployment but not in places with more poverty. Supplemental responses are higher in places with professional management and higher education. Deferrals are higher in places with more debt but lower in places with older infrastructure. Localities with less fiscal stress take no specific action. Most governments combine cuts, supplements, and deferrals; this balanced response is associated with more fiscal stress, more citizen engagement, and higher levels of unionization. These results show that local governments practice pragmatic municipalism, not austerity urbanism, when responding to fiscal stress.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/puar.13196</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0033-3352 |
ispartof | Public administration review, 2021-05, Vol.81 (3), p.389-398 |
issn | 0033-3352 1540-6210 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2527981828 |
source | Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; Access via Wiley Online Library; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete; EBSCOhost Education Source |
subjects | Analysis Austerity policy Counties Government finance Higher education Infrastructure Local government Managed competition Polls & surveys Poverty Stress Structural equation modeling Unemployment Unionization Urbanism |
title | Pragmatic Municipalism: U.S. Local Government Responses to Fiscal Stress |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T22%3A03%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pragmatic%20Municipalism:%20U.S.%20Local%20Government%20Responses%20to%20Fiscal%20Stress&rft.jtitle=Public%20administration%20review&rft.au=Warner,%20Mildred%20E.&rft.date=2021-05&rft.volume=81&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=389&rft.epage=398&rft.pages=389-398&rft.issn=0033-3352&rft.eissn=1540-6210&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/puar.13196&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA661981876%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2527981828&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A661981876&rfr_iscdi=true |