During the past few decades, local governments have extended the scope of their activities in response to changing economic and political conditions. By and large, research on local governments neglects counties, now the fastest growing general-purpose governments. This article examines counties’roles in economic development and public service activities and reports on findings from a national survey of county governments with broad generalizability and a relatively high response rate across metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Counties provide important services that promote local economic development, enhance human capital, and serve social safety net functions. In accordance with literature on decentralization, the scope of these activities is reported to have grown with the passage of time. Relative to other counties, however, nonmetro counties provide fewer economic development and other public services and are less likely to have increased their role in these activities over time. The article examines reasons for these metro-nonmetro differences.

This paper examines the effects of state economic development incentives on the growth of 366 Ohio manufacturing and nonmanufacturing establishments that launched major expansions between 1993 and 1995. Growth is measured as the actual employment change that occurred in these establishments and as the employment growth announced when expansions were launched. Empirical findings indicate that incentives have very little (or even a negative) effect on actual growth and they have a substantial positive effect on announced growth. Findings also suggest that establishments that received incentives overestimated their announced employment targets more than establishments that did not receive incentives. Copyright 2002 Blackwell Publishers

No abstract

Social scientists have given substantial attention to poverty across U.S. localities. However, most work views localities through the lens of population aggregates, not as units of government. Few poverty researchers question whether governments of poorer localities have the capacity to engage in economic development and service activities that might improve community well-being. This issue is increasingly important as responsibilities for growth and redistribution are decentralized to local governments that vary dramatically in resources. Do poorer communities have less activist local governments? Are they more likely to be engaged in a race to the bottom, focusing on business attraction activities but neglecting services for families and working people? We bring together two distinct literatures, critical research on decentralization and research on local development efforts, that provide contrasting views about the penalty of poverty. Data are from a unique, national survey of county governments measuring activity across two time points. The most consistent determinants of activity are local government capacity, devolutionary pressures, and inertia or past use of strategies. Net of these factors, levels and changes in poverty do not significantly impact government activity. There is no evidence the nations' poorest counties are racing to the bottom. Findings challenge views that poverty is a systematic structural barrier to pursuing innovative economic development policies and suggest that even poorer communities can take steps to build local capacity, resources, and networks that expand programs for local businesses and low-wage people. Copyright (c) 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc..

No abstract