Interest groups and public policy in US local government -- The policy-focused approach to studying interest groups -- How active are interest groups in local politics? -- What kinds of interest groups are most active? -- Political parties in local politics -- Influence: issues, approach, and expectations -- Business and growth -- Unions, public safety, and local government spending -- Interest group influence in local elections -- Local interests and power.
A policy-focused approach to understanding the role of interest groups in US municipal governments. Local politics in the United States once seemed tranquil compared to the divisiveness and dysfunction of the country's national politics. Those days have passed. As multiple wide-ranging crises have thrust America's local governments into the spotlight, they have also exposed policy failures and systemic problems that have mounted for years. While issues such as policing and the cost of housing are debated nationally, much of the policymaking surrounding these issues occurs locally. In Local Interests, Sarah F. Anzia explores how local governments—and the interest groups that try to influence them—create the policies that drive the national conversation: policing, economic development, housing, and challenges of taxing and spending. Anzia examines local interest groups in terms of the specific policies they pursue, including how these groups get active in politics and what impact they have. By offering new perspectives on these issues, Anzia contributes to our knowledge of how interest groups function and the significant role they play in shaping broader social outcomes
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
"Public policy in the United States is the product of decisions made by more than 500,000 elected officials, and the vast majority of those officials are elected on days other than Election Day. And because far fewer voters turn out for off-cycle elections, that means the majority of officials in America are elected by a politically motivated minority of Americans. Sarah F. Anzia is the first to systemically address the effects of election timing on political outcomes, and her findings are eye-opening. The low turnout for off-cycle elections, Anzia argues, increases the influence of organized interest groups like teachers' unions and municipal workers. While such groups tend to vote at high rates regardless of when the election is held, the low turnout in off-cycle years enhances the effectiveness of their mobilization efforts and makes them a proportionately larger bloc. Throughout American history, the issue of election timing has been a contentious one. Anzia's book traces efforts by interest groups and political parties to change the timing of elections to their advantage, resulting in the electoral structures we have today. Ultimately, what might seem at first glance to be mundane matters of scheduling are better understood as tactics designed to distribute political power, determining who has an advantage in the electoral process and who will control government at the municipal, county, and state levels."--Publisher's description
For decades, research on US local politics emphasized the distinctiveness of local government, but that has begun to change. In recent years, new data on partisanship and ideology have transformed the study of local politics. Much of the ensuing scholarship has concluded that local politics resembles politics in state and national governments: partisan and ideological. I argue that such a conclusion is premature. So far, this newer literature has been insufficiently attentive to the policies US local governments make—and to the fact that they are mostly different from the issues that dominate national politics. Going forward, scholars should prioritize measurement of preferences on these local government issues, develop theories of when and why local political divisions will mirror national partisanship and ideology, and investigate why there are links between some local policies and national partisanship and ideology—and whether those links also exist for core local government issues.
Some experts claim that U.S. local governments are experiencing dramatic increases in pension expenditures and that pension spending is crowding out government services. Others maintain that serious pension problems are limited. This issue is important to political scientists, urban scholars, and policy practitioners, but no existing studies—nor the datasets they rely on—allow evaluation of whether pension expenditures are rising or how they are affecting local government. This article analyzes a new dataset of the annual pension expenditures of over 400 municipalities and counties from 2005 to 2016. I find that pension expenditures rose almost everywhere over this period, but there is significant variation in that growth. On average, local governments are not responding to rising pension spending by increasing revenue. They are instead shrinking their workforces. Moreover, I find that the magnitude of the employment reductions due to pensions varies with key features of the political environment.
The organizers of this colloquy and the authors of The Fight for America's Schools ask two important questions: What are the political and organizational challenges faced by groups opposed to school choice and test-based accountability reforms? And what do they portend for the landscape of education politics going forward? In this article, I discuss two such challenges and their implications. First, the groups discussed in the book have so far been united by opposition to school choice and test-based accountability reforms, but they may well suffer going forward from the absence of a positive policy agenda—a set of specific alternative policies that would improve student achievement and school performance. Second, the strongest of these groups by far are teacher unions, but barring fundamental changes in union leaders' incentives, they are unlikely to adopt the book's recommendation that they abandon the traditional model of "business unionism" in favor of "social justice unionism."
Eighty percent of American cities today hold their general elections on different days than state and national elections. It is an established fact that voter turnout in these off-cycle local elections is far lower than turnout in local elections held concurrently with state and national elections. In this paper, I demonstrate that the timing of city elections has been an important determinant of voter turnout since before the Civil War. By examining three large American cities over the course of the nineteenth century, I find that American political parties regularly manipulated the timing of city elections to secure an edge over their rivals. I show that the decisions to change the election dates of these cities were contentious, partisan, and motivated by an expectation of subsequent electoral gain. The Progressive municipal reformers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries continued in this tradition when they separated city elections from state and national elections, and the local election schedule they implemented has largely persisted until today.