The Planner’s Parallax presents “A Tale of Two Budgets,” a four part series aiming to explore how different systems of government administration might influence a community’s development. Plans are nice but budgets are where the rubber meets the road. That is to say that municipal budgets are the ultimate statement of goals and priorities. Therefore, its time to take two comparable communities to task by putting their budgets to the test. The four parts of A Tale of Two Budgets are:
Part One: Distant but Familiar, The Dalles versus Meadville – A Profile
Part Two: Financial Resilience – Setting Up the Test
Part Three: Battle of the Budgets
Part Four: What about the Average Person
Part One explores the basic geographic, environmental, and economic conditions present in each community. We’ll explore recent population changes, the spatial distribution of jobs and workers, and describe how these cities have arrived at their current state of affairs. The second installment in this series will set up a variety of different “tests” derived from budgetary analysis. Doing so will attempt to answer questions about financial efficiency and the value that taxpayers receive from their respective local governments. Part Three will bring the excitement of our budgetary battle. Insightful budgetary metrics will be revealed through infographics that are often excluded from ordinary budget presentations. Finally, the last part of this series will attempt to answer what all of our earlier exploration actually means for the average person in each community.
Stay tuned in to a tale of two budgets by Subscribing to the Planner’s Parallax
Each part of this multi-part series will be released intermittently with unrelated post published in-between parts. Consider subscribing to our newsletter to receive an announcement when the next part of the series, and other articles, are published. Part One will be published soon!
Subscribe to The Planner’s Parallax
Thank you for subscribing to the Planner’s Parallax!
Have you ever wondered what is the Modus Operandi or M.O. of your local municipality government. This post examines four conceptions of the proper role of local government as conceived by various communities. The four typologies explored here are the ones constructed by Oliver P. Williams in his research on local governments across the State of Michigan during the 1950s. As we’ll see, these four different ideas on the role of local government appear to stem from varying conceptions of the “public good.” Accordingly, one potential application of this discussion may be to establish an analytical basis to predict the actions of local governments both presently and as circumstances change over time. More casually, this discussion might provide clarity to help understand how your local government thinks.
TO Understand How Your Government Thinks, YOU MUST PIN ITS PERCEIVED ROLE
The nature of peoples’ attachment to the city influences their conception of the public’s interest and thus also their view of the proper role of government. Oliver P. Williams, an economist and professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, studied the political dynamics between local government jurisdictions. One of his main works titled, Four Cities – A Study in Comparative Policy Making, that he coauthored along with Charles R. Adrian, attempted to compare the political process in four middle-sized American cities over the decade from 1948 through 1957. Holding constant the state system of governance and population size, Williams attempted to isolate the affect differences in local opinion had on the role of government. A key conclusion from Williams and Adrian’s study in Four Cities was the identification of four distinct governing dispositions for municipalities. These typologies include:
The instrument of community growth (also referred to as “the producer”);
The provider of life’s amenities;
A “caretaker;” and
The arbitrator of conflicting interests.
Oliver Williams recognized that the role of municipal government may be conceptualized under two different interpretations. One comprises the image of what the public believes to be the proper role of government. A second can be based off the actual role of the government as derived from its activities. Therefore, Williams was careful to note that the four roles he identified are analytical constructs rather than true typologies diagnosed from an examination of data.
The municipality as “the producer.”
THE INSTRUMENT OF COMMUNITY GROWTH
The instrument of community growth or “the producer” principally harnesses the apparatus of the local government to support the continuation of growth and development in a manner that suits the interests of those who influence its politics. To understand how this government thinks, a breakdown of this typology including its top objective, primary assumption, use of local politics, supporters, and common actions is outlined as follows:
Top Objective – The most important ends to be served are population expansion, industrial development, commercial activities, increasing net worth, and similar.
Founding Assumption – The good community is the one that continues to grow. This is based on the idea that “people vote with their feet” and are choosing our community because it is good.
How Politics is Used – Local politics serves to boost production. The municipal government is viewed as a municipal corporation that must operate in a business-like manner to serve the producers (industries).
Common Boosters – Industrialists, city planners, local merchants, business clubs, bankers, and large property owners. Supporters are driven by their economic interest but many also harbor a sense of civic pride based on a pursuit of progress and prosperity that has historically been an essential ingredient in our national aspirations. In general, growth symbolizes economic, social, and cultural opportunity.
Examples of Characteristic Actions – Common activities include enacting zoning variations, reducing tax assessments, providing subsidies to businesses, developing industrial parks, installing utilities, and other actions to keep labor cost down while promoting production. The producer view of government often expresses itself in negative terms – nothing should be done which might hinder the community’s growth, and an “open for business” reputation is a must.
The municipality as “the provider of life’s amenities.”
THE PROVIDER OF LIFE’S AMENITIES
The provider of life’s amenities focuses the resources of the municipality to promote and preserve a valued quality of life. Doing so is not limited to actions aimed at improving the living environment but also includes activities that may reduce those factors that might detract from the quality of life. To understand how this government thinks, a breakdown of this typology including its top objective, primary assumption, use of local politics, supporters, and common actions is outlined as follows:
Top Objective – The general expectation of the city is to preserve a valued “way of life” by safeguarding it while improving upon the advantages of the city as a place to live. The pursuit of amenities is the top goal of local government.
Founding Assumptions – Amenities means comforts and necessities. Pursuing these will create a quiet and peaceful environment for the home. The citizen is viewed as a consumer rather than as a producer.
How Politics is Used – To support efforts that stress consumption at the expense of production. Improvements are provided because of the local “willingness-to-pay.” Policies accent the home environment rather than the working environment.
Common Boosters – Communities comprised of largely upper-middle-class families, including wealthy elderly retired people and young couples who are anxious for the “right kind of town for their children.” What companies do exist can often supply, either directly or through their tax base, great additional amenities.
Examples of Characteristic Actions – The application of rigid zoning laws, building codes, open space is jealously guarded, noise and smoke are curtailed, and traffic is re-routed or calmed, outsiders or transients are excluded, and the supply of labor is kept low. Growth is often objectionable and what growth is permitted must be controlled and directed both in terms of who is being permitted and the nature of physical change. Efforts to promote homogeneity and a common style of living. Favors pedestrians and children over commerce. Public welfare is an unwanted diversion of resources because those asking for it are seeking a necessity that other citizens provide privately.
The municipality as “the caretaker.”
THE CARETAKER
The caretaker mentality is entirely focused on keeping taxes low by limiting the role of government. Additionally, a caretaker serves its citizens by attempting to “protect” them from the actions of higher levels of government. To understand how this government thinks, a breakdown of this typology including its top objective, primary assumption, use of local politics, supporters, and common actions is outlined as follows:
Top Objective – To keep down the cost of government.
Founding Assumption – Local government can effectively realize extreme conservative views. The top values stressed are freedom and self-reliance of the individual. The private allocation of resources is favored over government or public allocation. This typology emphasizes a pluralistic conception of the public good.
How Politics is Used – Matters (local problems) are passed onto higher levels of government, given over to private groups, or otherwise ignored. Doing so presents the appearance of resisting the expansion of government. A tax increase can only be justified if doing so is to maintain the traditional nature of government.
Common Boosters – Fixed income senior citizens, working class families, homesteaders, and farmers. People are expected to work out their own problems and to pay on a fee-for-service basis for what they get. Retired middle-class persons who are home owners on a fixed income. Marginal home owners who can barely afford their home will also find this view attractive.
Examples of Characteristic Actions – The functions of government are very limited. Common government functions are transferred to the private market. Even facilities that everyone wants are supplied parsimoniously. Nothing new is tried. Strong opposition to zoning, planning, and property regulations.
The municipality as the “arbitrator of conflicting interest.”
THE ARBITRATOR OF CONFLICTING INTEREST
The arbitrator mentality focuses resources and efforts on the management of conflict between different constituent groups. In doing so, the municipality mediates conflict through the public process. However, outcomes are rarely decided on logical grounds. To understand how this government thinks, a breakdown of this typology including its top objective, primary assumption, use of local politics, supporters, and common actions is outlined to as follows:
Top Objective – To arbitrate and manage conflict for the purpose of finding the lowest common denominator or “modus vivend” on which a settlement between competing interest can be reached. Emphasizes the process rather than the substance of government action.
Founding Assumption – What is good for someone must be bad for someone else. This removes public policy from being considered as a final equilibrium.
How Politics is Used – This type can be similar to “the caretaker” but cannot be as passive because the heterogeneity of its population gives rise to conflicts that can’t be ignored. Politics is used to settle disputes through an emphasis on process. Even decisions that might not be the most productive for or safeguarding of the community on the whole are made through settlement and agreement so long as the interest of varying constituencies are considered. That is to say that the possibility of a “community good” may be recognized but in practice all such claims are reduced to the level of interests. The structure of government must not be subordinate to an interest but instead structured such that most interest are at least considered by decision makers. The government does not function as a neutral agency to balance matters on a fixed standard of equity or political weighing.
Common Boosters – This government type is more likely to occur where diversity is great and political power depends on building coalitions (special interest groups fail to hold complete control). However, the majority group in the arbitrator city tends to lean away from the arbitrator view of government. Commonly, arbitrator type governments form around ethnic groups, patronage-fed organizations or stakeholders, political machines, and similar benefactors.
Examples of Characteristic Actions – Providing some level of control over a department or institution to the minority political party within a jurisdiction. Spatially distributing the allocation of funds within the city’s jurisdiction to favor the most dominant interest among constituents. Granting recognition for a particular group through the memorialization of a leader from their people even those the majority of constituents do not affiliate with such individual.
DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF THE PUBLIC GOOD TO UNDERSTAND HOW YOUR GOVERNMENT THINKS
The Unitary Conception – the public good can be stated in substantial terms. Consistent with:
“promoting economic growth;” and
“providing or securing life’s amenities.”
The unitary conception of the public good lends itself to efforts to centralize and professionalize the bureaucracy of local government because doing so is attractive to those seeking to achieve substantive goals.
The Pluralistic Conception – stresses a procedural role for government (leaves the determination of the public good up to the people). Consistent with:
“to arbitrate among interest groups;” and
“maintaining traditional services” (the caretaker) when considering the ultimate effect.
The type “maintaining traditional services” may seem unitary in that it aims to limit the role of government as a substantive objective. However, the intent for limiting government’s role is to retain a greater range of choices for private individuals – an aim that is essentially pluralistic.
Governments with a pluralistic conception of the public good tend to favor decentralizing devices such as a plural executive, ward elections for council, and the distribution of services among committees. Doing so provides a high level of access to political leaders and makes programmatic political action more difficult.
CLOSING CONSIDERATIONS AND QUESTIONS
Planners must be politically astute in order to operate successfully within their jurisdiction. Understanding the nature of your municipality’s governing mentality is crucial for figuring out how to successfully work within the politics of your community. Hopefully, the four different typologies discussed within this post can help planners understand how their government thinks and advise their expectations for work as a result. Some closing questions include:
Which of the four governing dispositions discussed above best describes your municipality?
Do you think that we’ve seen the emergence of other types of governing dispositions held by local governments?
SOURCES: Understanding How Your Government Thinks
Banfield C. Edward and James Q Wilson. City Politics. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. and Random House, Inc, 1963.
Williams, Oliver. P. (1961). A Typology for Comparative Local Government. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109267
