This article analyzes variation in the degree to which states have responded to the devolution of welfare at the federal level by devolving authority over welfare policy to local government. I find that to the extent that states have devolved authority to lower levels of government, they tend to be states that already had a high degree of involvement of local government in welfare provision. In states without this record of local government involvement, the devolution that has occurred has not generated greater involvement of local government, but rather responsibility has been devolved to regional entities with ties to workforce development and with a substantial degree of business involvement. As states gain increasing authority over a redistributive policy, they may begin to treat it as a subset of a larger developmental policy-workforce development.
This article explores the politics of regional cooperation in Houston and in Los Angeles, focusing in particular on the role of the state in facilitating or inhibiting metropolitan-wide approaches to urban problems. In both California and Texas, the state can play a significant role in facilitating regional cooperation. However, important limits exist on the extent to which this happens. While generous annexation rules have facilitated regionalism in Houston, these rules are themselves only as strong as the political consensus to use and maintain them. Similarly, regional agencies in Los Angeles have been reluctant to fully utilize their powers in the face of strong political opposition from local governments. Finally, in both Houston and Los Angeles regionalism is more often defined in terms of systems maintenance functions rather than lifestyle functions. The use of statelevel rules to promote regionalism may suffer from the same political liabilities as earlier attempts to form regional governments.From "soccer moms" to Gore's "Livability Agenda," the political significance of suburbia has dominated much of the news reporting and political commentary of the last several election cycles. As the percentage of the United States population living in suburbs has grown from a quarter of the population in 1950 to the finding of the 1990 census that almost half of Americans live in suburbs, political analysts have increasingly concerned themselves with the political implications of suburban growth. With phrases like "the secession of the successful" and "the balkanization of America," researchers have painted an increasingly gloomy portrait of a nation divided between decaying inner cities plagued by poverty and unemployment, and fortress suburbs engaged in "defensive localism"-the attempt to maintain their own standard of living while avoiding encroaching social problems (Frey, 1996; Reich, 1991;Weir, 1995). For those interested in the future of American cities, an increasingly important question is how to bridge the political boundaries that separate city and suburban communities.
Major federal grant programs in areas such as transportation, neighborhood development, and education increasingly rely on competition to award funds. Yet the capacity to develop a competitive application for funds can vary widely, with some places lacking civic resources that contribute to successful grant applications. Moreover, not all civic actors and priorities have similar levels of involvement in grant seeking; in particular, low‐income communities may be left out of the process. Our research examines how two forms of capacity—civic and equity advocacy—affect the distribution of federal transportation grants between and within metropolitan regions. We use multiple methods of analysis, including comparative case studies of transportation projects in Miami and Orlando, as well as a cross‐sectional quantitative analysis of competitive transportation grants. First, we assess how civic capacity affects whether a region secured federal transportation funding and find that civic capacity is positively associated with receiving competitive transportation grants in both the case studies and quantitative analysis. Second, we examine whether equity advocacy capacity within a region is associated with grant project benefits for low‐income communities. Based on the case studies, we find that equity advocacy capacity may be a key condition in order for grants to benefit low‐income communities, and our exploratory quantitative analysis further supports for this finding. Overall our findings substantiate concerns that competition for federal awards could exacerbate disparities between and within regions.
The Great Recession was a moment of challenge for many regions and required that leaders reflect on their economic development strategies. Given the propensity of regions to adopt ideas and strategy “fads” that then inform policy debate, we seek to understand how two very different regions with different histories framed their responses to the recession. How did they conceptualize the economic challenge in their region? What did they envision as appropriate responses to this challenge? How did these visions relate to mimetic behavior of the past, in which largely uniform visions are adopted across diverse locations? Our findings show that economic development leaders in the Buffalo and Orlando regions advocated similar high‐tech/biomedical strategies as a way to diversify their economies and make them more resilient or less vulnerable to future shocks. By conceptualizing economic diversification in such similar ways, despite substantial regional differences, this pursuit of resilience or decreased vulnerabilities through economic diversification appears highly similar to prior mimetic behaviors. We consider the implications of this finding for theories of adaptive resilience in which the focus is on economic diversification as part of resilient processes and behaviors, rather than as a fixed characteristic or end state of regions. As practiced in our case studies, diversification for the purpose of resilient outcomes differs substantially from theoretical arguments explaining adaptive resilience as both behavior and process. We caution that policy and planning visions of resilience may therefore represent yet another fad to be mimicked ad infinitum. Nevertheless, adaptive resilience as defined in the literature may still offer promise as a practical strategy—just not one that we yet observe in practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.