Structural Conflict in Contemporary Cities

Abstract

A surprising number of modern American cities are experiencing efforts to drastically alter or even abandon their forms of local government. We discuss the major perspectives on municipal structural choice and then use both survey and census data in an attempt to explain this contemporary urban conflict over governance structure. Our findings demonstrate that no single institutional, political, social, or contextual theory satisfactorily explains this evolving struggle over governing arrangements in U.S. cities. Rather, a complex array of factors such as race, ethnicity, education, economic change, governmental composition, and specific municipal design features seem to be driving these movements for institutional change.

Systems Ideologies and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Policy Change and Perceptions of Quality in a Behavioral Health Care System

“…Widespread macro-level systems changes are more likely to aff ect external stakeholders ' perceptions of effi ciency or eff ectiveness or express the preferences of valued constituencies rather than street-level bureaucrats directly. As illustrated by a recent article by Simmons and Simmons (2004) , drivers of structural change in government tend to be environmental, not internal to public governance systems. In other words, what matters to street-level bureaucrats is how they do what they do, not the larger questions of what they are doing or some abstract paradigmatic explanations of why they are doing it.…”

The Determinants of Municipal Structures on a Political-Administrative Dimension

“…Different from the political conflict theory and class cleavage theory, Knoke (1982) describes the adoption of the reformed council-manager municipal structure as an innovation diffusion process. Simmons and Simmons (2004) explain municipal structure choices from five perspectives, including government design flaws, political conflicts, sociodemographic cleavage, government legitimacy problems, and leadership deficits. 3 The evidence from empirical exploration is mixed.…”

“…Hirschman (1982) argues that municipal structures are highly dynamic and change based on the shifting values between pursuits of the private interests of individuals and the public interests of the society as an entity. Such scholars as Banfield and Wilson (1963), Lineberry and Fowler (1967), Hays (1974), Knoke (1982), Simmons and Simmons (2004), and Choi et al (2013) believe that the shift of municipal structures from the unreformed strong mayor to the reformed council-manager is the result of contests between two groups: (a) the moralistic middle- and upper-class predominantly white native Protestants and business and professional elite, who have higher educational degrees, hold “public regarding ethos,” and seek a structure responsive to their interests and (b) the working class, minorities, the poor, and immigrants, who want a government responsive to their needs.…”

“…Some recent studies also provide evidence. Simmons and Simmons (2004) use ordinal values to measure municipal structure changes on a political-administrative dimension. Utilizing the ordered logit model, they find that municipal structures are affected by the race, ethnicity, and educational attainment of citizens.…”

Planning to Coordinate and Coordinating the Plan

“…But concerns about coordinated planning are also sometimes mentioned. Some authors question the feasibility of coordinated planning, noting that important problems often go unresolved (Klingner, Nalbandian, & Romzek, 2002;Simmons & Simmons, 2004). Others bring up the normative concern that coordinated planning may be less than fully inclusive, excluding some groups and leaders who are critical of currently established elites or leaders.…”