This article seeks to examine factors that influence county government preferences for redistributive policies. An analysis of county services in 2007 reveals that political economic and political institutional influences stimulate redistributive service choices. Not only do these influences promote the provision of redistribution, but they also carry important implications for choices to internalize versus outsource production efforts. State-level influences and the reformed government structure consistently stimulate both the provision and internal production of redistributive services. Moreover, the findings suggest that the politics of redistribution as commonly understood for cities has different implications when applied to the environments of counties.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR).1993. State laws governing local government structure and administration . Washington, DC: ACIR.
2.
Alesina, A., and G. Angeletos.2005. Fairness and redistribution. The American Economic Review95 (4): 960-80.
3.
Bahl, R., J. Martinez-Vazquez, and S. Wallace.2000. Fiscal research program, 49: State and local government choices in fiscal redistribution. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State Univ.
4.
Benton, E.J.1992. The effects of changes in federal aid on state and local government spending. Publius22:71-82.
5.
Benton, E.J.2002. County service delivery: Does government structure matter ? Public Administration Review62 (4): 471-79.
6.
Benton, E.J.2003. County government structure and county revenue policy: What’s the connection? State and Local Government Review35 (2): 78-89.
7.
Benton, E.J.2006. Service provision within counties: The impact of population size and growth. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
8.
Benton, E.J., and D.C. Menzel.1991. County service trends and practices: The case of Florida. State and Local Government Review23 (2): 69-75.
9.
Benton, E.J., and D.C. Menzel.1992. Contracting and franchising county services in Florida. Urban Affairs Review27 (3): 436-56.
10.
Besley, T., and S. Coate.2003. On the public choice of welfare economics . Public Choice114 (3): 253-73.
11.
Bickers, K.N., L. Salucci, and R.M. Stein.2006. Assessing the micro-foundations of the Tiebout model. Urban Affairs Review42 (1): 57-80.
12.
Bobo, L.1991. Social responsibility, individualism, and redistributive policies. Sociological Forum6 (1): 71-92.
13.
Carr, J.B.2006. Local government autonomy and state reliance on special district governments: A reassessment. Political Research Quarterly59 (3): 481-92.
14.
Choi, S.O., S. Bae, S.W. Kwon, and R.C. Feiock.2010. County limits: Policy types and expenditure priorities. The American Review of Public Administration40 (1): 29-45.
15.
DeSantis, V.S., and T. Renner.1994. The impact of political structures on public policies inAmerican counties. Public Administration Review54 (3): 291-95.
16.
Duncombe, H.S.1977. Modern county government. Washington, DC: National Association of Counties.
17.
Farmer, J.L.2010. Factors influencing special purpose service delivery among counties. Public Performance & Management Review33 (4): 535-54.
18.
Feiock, R.C., and H.S. Jang.2009. Nonprofits as local government service contractors. Public Administration Review69 (4): 668-80.
19.
Ferris, J.M., and E. Graddy.1994. Organizational choices for public service supply. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization10 (1): 126-41.
20.
Fry, B.R., and R.F. Winters.1970. The politics of redistribution. The American Political Science Review64 (2): 508-22.
21.
International City/County Management Association (ICMA).2007a. County form of government, 2007. Washington, DC: ICMA Press.
22.
International City/County Management Association (ICMA).2007b. Profile of local government service delivery choices , 2007. Washington, DC: ICMA Press.
23.
Joyce, P., and D. Mullins.1991. The changing fiscal structure of the state and local public sector: The impact of tax and expenditure limitations . Public Administration Review51 (3): 240-52.
24.
Kearney, C.P., and T. Kim.1990. Fiscal impacts and redistributive effects of the new federalism on Michigan school districts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis12 (4): 375-87.
25.
Krane, D., P.N. Rigos, and M.B. Hill.2000. Home rule in America: A fifty-state handbook. Washington, DC: CQ Press .
26.
Lineberry, R.L., and E.P. Fowler.1967. Reformism and public choices inAmerican cities. American Political Science Review61 (3): 701-16.
27.
Menzel, D.C.1996. The American county: Frontiers in knowledge. Tuscaloosa, AL: Univ. of Alabama Press.
28.
Miller, G.M.1981. Cities by contract. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
Moane, K.O., and M. Wallerstein.2001. Inequity, social insurance, and redistribution . American Political Science Review95 (4): 859-74.
30.
Moffitt, R.A.2002. Welfare programs and labor supply. Working Paper W9168 , National Bureau of Economic Research. http://ssrn.com/abstract=331022.
31.
Mogull, R.G.1990. Federal welfare spending. Presidential Studies Quarterly20 (2): 355-71.
32.
Ostrom, E.1999. Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Theories of the policy process, edited by P. A. Sabatier, 35-71. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
33.
Park, K.O.1996. Determinants of county government growth. In The American county: Frontiers in knowledge, edited by D. C. Menzel, 33-52. Tuscaloosa, AL: Univ. of Alabama Press.
34.
Peterson, P.1981. City limits. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.
35.
Ramirez, E.E.2009. Local political institutions and smart growth: An empirical study of the politics of compact development. Urban Affairs Review45 (2): 218-46.
36.
Schneider, M.1987. Income homogeneity and the size of suburban government . Journal of Politics49 (1): 36-53.
37.
Schneider, M., and K.O. Park.1989. Metropolitan counties as service delivery agents: The still forgotten governments. Public Administration Review49 (4): 345-52.
38.
Stein, R.M.1990. Urban alternatives. Pittsburgh, PA : Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
39.
Stein, R.M.2003. The politics of revenue and spending policies. In Cities, politics, and policy, edited by J. P. Pelissero, 217-36. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
40.
Tiebout, C.1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64 (5): 416-24.
41.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.1990. Census of population and housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
42.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.2006a. American community survey. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&_lang=en&_ts=289329240700.
43.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.2006b. Census of governments annual survey of state and local government finances . http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate/historical_data_2006.html.
44.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.2006c. County population estimates. http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html .
