Metropolitan Counties as Service Delivery Agents: The Still Forgotten Governments

Author(s): Mark Schneider and Kee Ok Park

Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1989), pp. 345-352
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976844
Accessed: 02-05-2018 20:53 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/976844?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Society for Public Administration, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review

This content downloaded from 131.216.162.40 on Wed, 02 May 2018 20:53:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 345

Metropolitan Counties as Service

Delivery Agents: The Still Forgotten
Governments

* Mark Schneider, State University of New York

at Stony Brook
Kee Ok Park, State University of New York at
Stony Brook

In the last two decades, as population has continued to
shift out of central cities and into suburbs, and as suburbia
itself has sprawled into the vast stretches of unincorporat-
ed land in metropolitan areas, county governments have
become increasingly important as service delivery agents.1
County governments play a direct role in delivering ser-
vices to the population of unincorporated areas, and they
have increased their role in the delivery of urban services
to incorporated communities through contracts and other
joint service arrangements.2
The expansion of the role of county government has
not been paralleled by a corresponding expansion of sys-
tematic academic research. Counties enjoyed considerable
research attention during the 1950s, when the work of
Hoover and Vernon explored the role of counties in the
New York metropolitan area.3 This work provided a foun-
dation for the continued interest in counties witnessed dur-
ing the 1960s and early 1970s, when an active "reform
movement" argued for an expanded role for county gov-
ernment, focusing attention on the potential and the much
more limited actual role of county governments.4
The reform movement faltered as evidence accumulat-
ed that structural changes did not lead to more efficient
service delivery. The pro-county sentiments embodied in
the reform movement were further undercut as a free mar-
ket philosophy came to dominate discussions of politics
and governance. In research on local services, this shift
was evident in the impact throughout the 1970s and 1980s
of the market-oriented approaches of researchers such as
Elinor Ostrom, Robert Bish, and E. S. Savas.5
In the polycentric approach, counties are not critical to
the governance of metropolitan regions. Instead, county
governments are just another potential supplier of urban
services, along with special districts, municipalities, and
private finns.6 From this perspective, limited research on
counties in recent years was, at most, a minor problem.
The new research agenda stressed the role of privatization
and contracting with private firms as the preferred means
of urban service delivery.7
Given this intellectual climate, academic research on
county governments accumulated at a snail's pace during
the past decade. With some exceptions, the characteriza-
tion by Marando and Thomas of counties as "forgotten
governments" is probably more accurate today than when
they made this observation over 10 years ago.8
Interestingly, in contrast to the recent absence of sys-
tematic academic work, the popular press has paid consid-
erable attention to county governments. Perhaps the most
important media event signaling the importance of coun-
ties was the separate analyses of "megacounties" appear-
ing almost simultaneously in 1987 in Time Magazine and
CitylCounty Magazine.9 Similarly, the profile of Los
Angeles County in Atlanticl and the growing prominence
of Newsday, with its intense coverage of county govern-

While county governments have emerged as key service delivery agents in metropolitan regions, academic work
on counties is more limited now than 20 years ago. In this article, trends in county government expenditures and
functional responsibility are analyzed between 1972 and 1982 in a set of 162 county governments in 50 metropoli-
tan regions. Counties are engaged in a greater range of functions and spend more on redistributive service than
the suburban municipalities to which they are compared. However, for the developmental services which create
and maintain the urban infrastructure, counties do less than municipalities, but the gap between the two levels of
government is narrowing. Furthermore, counties with elected chief executives spend more and do more than county
governments with other forms of government.

JULY/AUGUST 1989

This content downloaded from 131.216.162.40 on Wed, 02 May 2018 20:53:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 346 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
ments in Long Island, are other indications of the popular
attention paid to the role of counties. While such evidence
shows the extent to which counties are important service
delivery agents in metropolitan regions, the purpose of this
article is to provide more systematic analysis of the chang-
ing role of county governments.
In the next sections of this article, empirical data docu-
menting the service delivery role of metropolitan counties
are examined. These data are from 162 counties located in
50 of the largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in
the United States. To establish a baseline by which to
assess the relative importance of county governments,
indicators of their service role are compared to data from
the more than 1,400 incorporated suburban municipalities
located within their borders. Suburbs, not central cities,
have been chosen as the baseline because the balance
between suburbs and counties is probably in greater flux
than is the relationship between central cities and counties.
As noted above, the most intense pressure for expansion
of county governments has come from suburban commu-
nities, where the resources to meet the demands of rapid
growth are often stretched to their limits. Further, a
majority of the population in metropolitan regions now
lives in suburbia, not central cities, increasing the impor-
tance of the comparison presented in this article.
Measuring the Service Role of
County Governments
County government involvement with local services is
measured from several angles. First, total expenditures are
examined as an indicator of the overall involvement of a
local government in the delivery of services. Total
expenditures are compared across suburban municipalities
and metropolitan counties in 1972 and 1982, allowing for
both temporal comparison and comparison across levels of
government
In addition to expenditures, following the work of
Liebert,12 an index of functional responsibility is comput- Total Expenditures $109.24 $146.89 $265.21 $319.45
ed. This index reflects the number of functions with which Developmental 9.54 36.31 24.09 86.34
a city or county government is involved, regardless of the Redistributive 19.23 2.63 60.14 9.93
level of budgetary outlays. While such functional respon- Public Safety 5.49 27.72 16.23 79.87
sibility indices are correlated with expenditures, a consid-
erable body of work documents their independent impor-
tance.13 As with expenditures, data on functional
responsibility are reported for suburban cities and counties
in 1972 and 1982.[14]
The level of total expenditures and the index of total
functional responsibility give a broad overview of the
extent of governmental involvement in service delivery.
But additional indicators are needed. In the American sys-
tem of federalism, different levels of government assume
responsibility for different services. Despite repeated
attempts to sort out the assignment of functions using
rational criteria (e.g., economies of scale, fiscal capacity, Note: The functional responsibility index is the total number of services
geographic impact) to determine the level of government
which should deliver a given service, the division of
responsibility for services varies widely across regions and
over time.
This content downloaded from 131.216.162.40 on Wed, 02 May 2018 20:53:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEW
Attempts to reorganize services in metropolitan regions
have run afoul of the failure of the reform movement to
produce clear guidelines by which to assign a given func-
tion to a specific level of government.15 In addition, poli-
cy recommendations for the large-scale reorganization of
services have consistently encountered the intense politics
of service assignment. As a result, the pattern of functional
responsibility across levels of government is more the
product of historical patterns and associated legal man-
dates (cf., Liebert) or political dynamics, such as described
by Peterson, Friedland, or Kantor.16
Given this wide variation in service assignment, relying
only on indicators of total expenditures or overall func-
tional responsibility misses some of the most fundamental
dynamics of local service delivery. Disaggregation of
indicators across service domains is necessary.
While a variety of perspectives may be used to define
specific service delivery domains, parts of the classificato-
ry scheme developed by Paul Peterson in his influential
book City Limits are used here.17 Service involvement by
suburban cities and counties in what Peterson calls devel-
opmental services (which support the local infrastruc-
ture)18 and in the domain of redistributive services (wel-
fare, housing, health, and hospitals) are examined.
Because public safety expenditures do not easily fit into
Peterson's scheme but consume a large share of local out-
lays, they are also analyzed.19
Table 1
County and Suburban Municipal
Service Indicators,
Total and by Type 1972, 1982
Expenditures Per Capita
1972 1982
Counties Cities Counties Cities
Functional Indices
1972 1982
Counties Cities Counties Cities
Total Functions 13.4 8.4 14.0 10.5
Developmental 1.7 3.3 2.0 3.1
Redistributive 2.5 .8 2.7 .8
Public Safety 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.8
Source: Census of Governments, Fina
File A.
on which a county government expends any money whatsoever. The
total index is computed over the 31 functional areas reported in the
Census of Government Finance. The developmental index has a range
of 0 to 8, the redistributive index 0 to 4, and the public safety index 0 to 2.
JULY/AUGUST 1989
 METROPOLITIAN COUNTIES AS SERVICE DELIVERY AGENTS 347

Total Expenditures and Total Services In contrast, redistributive expenditures are dominated
by county governments.25 Most cities invest only small
County governments in metropolitan regions spend
amounts in social welfare functions: on average, suburban
considerable amounts of money. In 1972, county govern-
cities spent only about three percent of their budgets on
ments, nationwide, spent over $100 per capita (see Table
such services. In contrast, nationwide, in 1972 counties
1).[20] By 1982, as measured in current dollars, county
spent about 17 percent of their total budgets on current
outlays had increased sharply to $265 per capita. While
operating expenses for redistributive services. This
county outlays were less than the $146 per capita spent by
increased to almost 25 percent in 1982.
suburban municipalities in 1972 and the $319 in 1982, the
gap between the two levels of government closed during The functional indices provide further evidence of spe-
the decade. In 1972, outlays by county governments were cialization across the two levels of government.
about 75% of the average per capita expenditures of Paralleling the expenditure data, cities are more broadly
municipal governments. By 1982, counties were spending involved in developmental activities than are counties.
83% of the level of suburban municipalities. From anotherBut over time, counties expanded their involvement in this
angle, between 1972 and 1982, county governments service domain. A similar pattern is evident in the index
increased their total outlays by 143%, exceeding the 118% of public safety responsibility. Thus, during the ten years
growth experienced by suburban municipalities. Because examined, counties expanded their service responsibility
the rate of inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price in the two domains which cities have traditionally domi-
nated.
Index) during those 10 years was 131%, real municipal
expenditures actually declined, while county expenditures However, the demarcation between counties and cities
experienced real growth.21 in the domain of redistributive services remained sharp. In
Compared to suburban cities, metropolitan county gov- both 1972 and 1982, suburban cities had only minor
ernments are involved in a broader range of functions.22 responsibility for redistributive services, while the average
Computing a simple index across the 31 major functional index of redistributive service responsibility climbed
slightly for counties during the period.
categories reported by the Census of Governments, coun-
ties were involved with an average of 13.4 services in In short, metropolitan county governments play a sig-
1972, increasing to 14 in 1982. In contrast, suburban citiesnificant role in the delivery of local services. Their total
had an average functional index of only 8.4 in 1972 and expenditures, while lower than the outlays of suburban
10.5 in 1982. Thus, suburban cities spend more on ser- municipal governments, increased more rapidly. While
vices than do counties, but cities target these moneys on a suburban cities had a greater role in the development and
narrower range of functions. This is again evident in the protection of the urban infrastructure, counties expanded
next section, which examines local government activity in their presence in this domain, entering an area traditionally
specific domains. dominated by municipal governments. Throughout the
period, counties dominated redistributive expenditures.

Service Involvement by Domain

Variation in County Service Responsibility
While the assignment of functions across levels of
government in metropolitan government may not meet a In this section, several sources of variation in patterns
rigorous test of analysis, specialization of functions across of service responsibility across county governments are
levels of government in metropolitan areas does take examined. To present an overall picture of county service
place. As Table 1 shows, suburban cities nationwide focus delivery roles, variation in total expenditures and function-
on developmental expenditures, spending at least three al responsibility is examined. To simplify the presentation
times as much on the urban infrastructure as do counties. of a large amount of data, only expenditures and function-
Such specialization reflects the traditional role of cities in al indices in the developmental and redistributive arenas
building and maintaining streets, roads, and other parts of are studied. These represent the two ends of the continuum
the urban infrastructure. But it also reflects the pressures posited by Peterson, and the two service domains in which
on cities to invest in such services in their pursuit of eco- the role of county government is most different.
nomic development. Given the competition faced by The importance of county government varies consider-
cities, they may not be able to do otherwise.23 ably across regions of the United States. County govern-
Similarly, cities dominate expenditures on police and ments are historically weakest in New England. In con-
fire services.24 While it is not as easy to categorize public trast, counties have traditionally assumed a more active
role in the South. Paralleling and, to a large extent, under-
safety in Peterson's terms as it is to classify many other
lying this regional pattern is Liebert's documentation of
services, one major function of public safety is to protect
variation in the service role of "cohorts" of cities.26
the urban infrastructure. Thus, these services can be
viewed as an integral part of local efforts to create an envi- According to Liebert, early patterns of urbanization,
ronment conducive to economic growth. If this interpreta- tracing back to colonial New England, gave local authori-
tion is correct, the data reinforce the idea that cities spe- ties extensive responsibility for the well-being of their citi-
cialize in those services which promote economic zens. Congruent with this more extensive "social con-
development. tract," older cities assumed responsibility for a greater

JULY/AUGUST 1989

This content downloaded from 131.216.162.40 on Wed, 02 May 2018 20:53:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 348 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

Table 2 Table 3
County and Suburban Expenditures Per Capita County and Suburban Functional
by Type, by Region, 1972, 1982 Responsibility Indices,
By Type, by Region, 1972, 1982
1972 1982
Counties Cities Counties Cities
1972 1982
Counties Cities Counties Cities
Total Expenditures
Entire Sample $109.29 $146.89 $265.21 $319.45 Total Functional
New England 19.39 430.40 25.89 1010.59 Responsibility
Mid-Atlantic 152.93 134.33 375.22 289.55 Entire Sample 13.4 8.4 14.0 10.5
South 131.91 142.54 321.67 277.72 New England 8.7 13.3 10.3 16.7
North Central 83.82 140.89 202.42 310.29 Mid-Atlantic 15.2 9.3 16.0 11.1
West 115.33 111.27 280.42 353.66 South 13.4 8.0 14.5 9.8
North Central 12.8 8.1 12.6 10.2
Developmental West 14.3 8.1 16.2 11.3
Expenditures
Entire Sample $9.54 $36.31 $24.09 $86.34 Developmental
New England .49 40.53 .34 76.39 Services
Mid-Atlantic 6.93 34.47 19.09 80.16 Entire Sample 1.7 3.3 1.9 3.1
South 12.76 31.73 35.49 91.10 New England .8 3.8 1.0 3.8
North Central 9.31 36.11 20.02 89.80 Mid-Atlantic 1.8 3.1 2.0 3.0
West 9.25 30.70 22.94 80.58 South 1.8 3.4 2.2 3.2
North Central 1.5 3.3 1.7 3.1
Redistributive West 2.0 3.6 2.5 3.3
Expenditures
Entire Sample $19.23 $2.63 $60.14 $9.93 Redistributive
New England 2.19 19.65 6.17 83.25 Services
Mid-Atlantic 26.65 1.78 86.57 5.06 Entire Sample 2.5 .8 2.6 .8
South 14.66 1.07 45.04 11.81 New England .8 2.6 1.2 3.2
North Central 20.66 2.42 68.29 10.72 Mid-Atlantic 2.8 1.1 3.5 1.0
West 23.00 2.40 61.81 6.53 South 2.2 .6 2.5 .5
North Central 2.8 .7 2.5 .7
Source: Census of Governments, Finance Data File, 1972, 1982, File A. West 2.4 .4 3.2 .9

Source: Census of Governments, Finance Data File, 1972, 1982, File A.

range of services. As time passed and as the U. S. econo-
my became more complex (and more national in scope), South also spent more than their municipalities. However,
the social contract between cities and their citizens grew further west, cities still outspent their counties, but not to
more limited, and functions once assumed by municipal the same degree as in New England.
governments became the province of either county, state,
Turning to the separate domains of developmental and
or even national government. Moreover, because of pat-
redistributive services, municipalities in every region
terns of urbanization, there were historically fewer cities
dominated developmental outlays. However, in the area of
in the South and West to assume the responsibility for ser-
redistributive expenditures, with the exception of New
vice delivery, increasing the role of county governments in
England, the balance between suburban cities and counties
those regions. Thus, considerable overlap exists between
is reversed; in no region did cities spend more than coun-
regional patterns and the time dependent patterns noted by
ties. The dynamics behind the need for cities to invest in
Liebert. Consequently, variation in county service respon-
infrastructure and avoid redistributive services are evident-
sibility is explored from both a geographic and an age per-
ly present nationwide.
spective.
The regional distribution of functional responsibility
follows predictable lines (see Table 3). Again, in every
Regional Patterns of County Service Roles region but New England, counties are involved in a
greater number of services than are cities. Not surprising-
Table 2 reports outlays using a variation of the four
ly, counties in the Mid-Atlantic region are among the gov-
largest geographic regions defined by the U. S. Bureau of
ernments with the broadest set of responsibilities. Note too
the Census (North, South, North Central, and West).
the growth in county functions in the Pacific region. This
Because the role of counties in New England is so radical-
may be a result of the limits put on municipalities by
ly different than it is in other parts of the country, the
North is divided into its two constituent subregions, New Proposition 13 in California and a resulting upward migra-
England and the Mid-Atlantic.27 Considerable regional tion of services that are funded by the state but performed
differences are found. Turning first to total outlays, not by counties. Patterns of functional responsibility for devel-
surprisingly, county governments in New England have opmental and redistributive services follow a similar
the lowest profile and, contrary to national trends, one that regional distribution. The differences reported in Tables 2
did not expand. In contrast, county governments in the the and 3 are all statistically significant, and they indicate the
Mid-Atlantic region actually spent more than their munici- importance of patterns of regional development on gover-
palities throughout the decade. By 1982, counties in the nance.

JULY/AUGUST 1989

This content downloaded from 131.216.162.40 on Wed, 02 May 2018 20:53:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
METROPOLITIAN COUNTIES AS SERVICE DELIVERY AGENTS 349
Table 4
The Relationship of Age of SMSA
and County Service Role, 1972, 1982
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
1972 1982
Expenditures Per Capita
Total -.32(*) -.31(*)
Developmental .06 .03
Redistributive -16(*) -21(*
Functional Indices
Tota -.16(*) -.09
Developmental -.03 .00
Redistributive -.14(*) -.12
Source: Expenditures, Indices: Census of Governments, Finance Data
File, 1972, 1982, File A. Age: Census of Population, various years.
Note: Age is defined as the census year in which the central city of the
metropolitan region reached 50,000 population.
(*) p<.05
Effects of Metropolitan Age
Liebert's related question is explored next: how does
the age of the metropolitan region affect county expendi-
tures? Age is computed here by the year when the central
city of the MSA reached 50,000 population. This age
variable is then correlated with county expenditures and
the functional indices (see Table 4).
Age effects are evident in the expenditure data.
Paralleling Liebert's findings for large cities, county gov-
ernments in newer areas spend less overall than do county
governments in older ones.28 This correlation is surpris-
ingly strong, since counties in New England (which are
among the oldest MSAs) spend so little. With regard to
specific domains, no-age related pattern is evident among
counties for developmental expenditures, but redistribu-
tive expenditures are higher in older counties.
Age differences in patterns of expenditures are not
reflected in the indices of functional responsibility. In
1972, across counties the expected negative relationship
between age and total functional responsibility emerges.
However, in 1982, the relationship is significant only at
the .11 level. Paralleling the expenditure data, no relation-
ship exists between the responsibility for developmental
services and age in either 1972 or 1982. While the expect-
ed negative relationship between redistributive services
and age is significant in 1972, by 1982, the relationship no
longer meets standard tests of statistical significance.
Thus, for metropolitan counties, supportive but decidedly
mixed evidence is found relating age to service delivery
patterns.
Effects of Government Structure
Analysts, political scientists in particular, have long
been interested in the role of local government structure
on expenditures. In the investigation of central cities,
research has focused on the connection between reform
JULY/AUGUST 1989
This content downloaded from 131.216.162.40 on Wed, 02 May 2018 20:53:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 5
County Government Service Involvement
by Type of Government Structure, 1977,
Controlling for Region, Population, and Growth
Council-
Council- Elected
Commission Administrator Executive
N=96 N=47 N=19
Total Expenditures $153.78 $183.16 $333.14
Developmental
Expenditures $7.60 $7.78 $ 12.12
Redistributive
Expenditures $13.23 $20.65 $ 21.76
Total Functions 13.6 14.5 14.7
Developmental Functions 1.8 2.1 2.4
Redistributive Functions 2.5 2.8 2.9
Source: Expenditures, Indices: Census of Governments, Finance Data
File, 1977, File A; National Association of Counties, County Yearbook,
1978.
Note: Reported means are adjusted for regional location in a two-way
analysis of variance design, and differences are significant at least at the
.05 level. County population and percentage change in population 1972-
1977 are included as covariates.
and expenditures. For cities, the expectation was that
reform leads to lower expenditures, as the norms of effi-
ciency embodied in governmental reform reduce waste.
However, the empirical evidence has been mixed, at
best.29
It has been argued that county governments, with their
geographic scope and their potential access to broader fis-
cal resources, should assume a more active service deliv-
ery role.30 It has also been noted that the ability of county
governments to expand has been constrained by their gov-
ernmental structure. In particular, the traditional form of
county government--a board of county commissioners--
often has been regarded as less capable of responding to
the challenges of metropolitan growth and service delivery
than county governments led by an elected chief executive
or by a professional administrator.31
Curiously, then, because a new structure of county gov-
ernment has been advocated as a means to increase the
level of professionalism and a means by which counties
can expand their service delivery role, the effects of
reform on county government may be opposite to that
posited for cities--i.e., structural reform may lead to higher
county expenditures and not to the lower levels of expen-
ditures expected in cities.
The effects of county government structure are exam-
ined in this section. Unfortunately, data on the structure of
county governments is sparse. The National Association
of Counties published data on government structure only
during the mid to late 1970s. Given that the primary data
source is the Census of Governments, it is possible only to
look at the effects of county government on services for
one year, 1977.
Because the distribution of types of county government
is not random across regions of the country and because
 350 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

there are significant their research, the transition from central

region
cities to subur-
delivery roles, ban municipalities
the was relatively
effectsstraightforward. o
research using a two-way analysis of variance design, Although central cities and suburban municipalities vary
where indicators of service delivery are used as the depen-widely in demographic characteristics, in functional scope,
dent variables and the form of county government and and in the level of outlays, both types of governments are
region are the independent variables. Similarly, because cities, and many of the concepts and problems in the anal-
larger counties and/or growing counties may assume dif- ysis of service delivery were portable from central cities to
ferent services than smaller counties or counties that are suburban ones.
not rapidly growing,32 these two population based factors
County governments have been less researched than
are controlled by introducing them as covariates in the
suburban cities and much less researched than central
analysis of variance procedure.
cities. Unfortunately metropolitan counties have also been
The independent effects of government structure on the a more difficult level of government at which to define
role of county government as a service provider are strik- some of the core concerns which have driven recent aca-
ing (see Table 5). Across every indicator, counties with demic work on urban problems. Some of the critical
elected executives provide the most services, followed by issues in urban research, especially the role of municipal
counties with an appointed administrator. Counties gov- governments in growth policies and social stratification
erned by county commissioners lag far behind in the pro- and their role in creating or correcting inequality between
vision of services.33 neighboring communities in tax rates and service levels,
seem less directly applicable to the study of county gov-
As an example, consider total expenditures. Counties ernment. Perhaps because of this absence of an easily
with elected heads spent over $330 per capita in 1977. defined theoretically-driven research agenda, county gov-
This was more than twice the level of outlays of commis- ernments have recently escaped serious concerted atten-
sion-led counties and about 75% more than counties with tion from the academic community.
nonelected administrators. Similarly, turning to total func-
But metropolitan county governments do play a signifi-
tional responsibility, counties with elected executives are
cant and expanding role in service delivery. Neglecting
involved with about 75% more services than counties with
their role can result in a distorted view of the level and
commissions and about 4% more services than counties
type of services available to residents of metropolitan
with appointed heads. Such differences are repeated in
regions. County governments have assumed responsibility
indicators of specific service domains.
for a growing number of services, especially as municipal-
While these results are strong, a potential problem must ities face the demands of growth at a time of stringent fis-
be noted which cannot be resolved with the present data. cal limits. County governments are also the front-line gov-
The data show that county governments with reformed ernment for the large proportion of suburban residents
structures (especially elected county executives) spend who live in unincorporated areas of metropolitan regions.
more and provide more services than counties with the tra- As a result, while metropolitan county governments
ditional commission form of government. On one hand, nationwide spent less per capita than did suburban munici-
this could mean that the form of government has led to an palities during the period examined, counties were
increased level of service activity. On the other hand, it is increasing their overall expenditures at a faster rate than
possible that counties with a greater service role have both suburban and central cities, and they were expanding
adopted a more contemporary form of government, better their involvement in most service domains. Indeed, in
to execute the responsibilities that they have already some regions, counties already spend more per capita
assumed. This question of causality cannot be resolved overall than do their suburban municipalities.
with data collected at a single point in time. It is also pos- Throughout the United States, with the exception of
sible that other conditions affect the pattern of service New England, counties dominated the delivery of redis-
delivery in addition to region and the two population mea- tributive services. Moreover, the continued expansion of
sures included in this research design. However, even with the role of county governments in developmental policies
these caveats, it appears that the form of county govern- should be expected. In recent years, urban research has
ment has a distinct relationship to the extent of involve- focused on the competition for economic development
ment of county governments in service delivery. between cities. But counties are subject to the same incen-
tives to expand their own tax base through economic
development. County governments can be expected to
Conclusions play a growing role in that critical policy domain.

Research into urban service delivery has traditionallyPerhaps the single most important factor correlated
been dominated by central cities. During the 1960s and with the level of county services is their governmental
1970s, the ongoing suburbanization of metropolitan areas structure. As counties move away from the traditional
eventually produced a significant and growing body form
of of county commissions to more modern forms, such
work on the role of suburban municipalities in the delivery as professional administrators and elected county execu-
of services. Research by authors such as Baldassare, tives, the importance of county governments as service
Gottdeiner, Logan, Molotch, and Schneider helped estab- delivery units will most likely accelerate. Perhaps most
lish the suburban municipality as a focus of analysis.34 In importantly, if counties shift to elected chief executive

JULY/AUGUST 1989

This content downloaded from 131.216.162.40 on Wed, 02 May 2018 20:53:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 METROPOLITIAN COUNTIES AS SERVICE DELIVERY AGENTS 351

officers, the pressure for county-based services, especially
in the area of development policies, may accelerate. In
their quest for reelection, county executives commonly
want to be able to offer voters good services at low resi-
dential tax rates, a condition to which economic growth
clearly contributes.
Several decades ago, Herson in his classic work
described a "lost world" of municipal research.35 During
now assuming a more active role in managing urban
growth through their involvement in the provision and
support of local infrastructure. Thus county governments
are becoming increasingly central to many of the basic
issues of urban research. Future work must investigate
further the role of county governments in service delivery,
in the patterns of local growth, and in both the quality and
equality of life choices in metropolitan regions.
* * *

the last two decades, this vacuum on city politics and

services has been filled by a growing body of exciting and
stimulating work. In a parallel vein, in 1977, Marando and
Thomas bemoaned the "forgotten" world of county gov-
ernments. Despite some extensive work in the 1950s and
1960s, and despite some scattered work during the last
decade, more study is clearly needed on county govern-
ments in metropolitan areas.
This article has just scratched the surface of the role of
county governments. Counties have primary responsibility
for implementing redistributive policies. But counties are
Mark Schneider is Professor of Political Science,
State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has
published numerous articles on suburban growth and ser-
vices. His book, The Competitive City: The Political
Economy of Suburbia, will be published in 1989 by
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Kee Ok Park is a graduate student in the Department
of Political Science, State University of New York at
Stony Brook. His research interests include urban public
policies and U.S. trade policy.

Notes

The research reported in this article was supported by grants from 10. Atlantic Magazine (October 1986), pp. 43-52.
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant 11. As of this writing, the 1982 Census of Governments is the last com-
number: 5RO1HD1727203) and the National Science Foundation (grant plete set of data available. Only preliminary data from the 1987
number: SES8508473). Census of Governments have been released. Given the large num-
ber of suburban municipalities involved in the comparative analy-
1. Local governments can produce local public goods, and/or they can sis, there will be considerable lag time before these data can be pro-
arrange for their provision, leaving the actual production to other cessed and analyzed. Consequently, many of the changes in service
agencies. The data used here do not allow for a separate analysis of responsibility flowing from the Reagan Administration are not
the role of counties along these two dimensions. More generic reflected in the present analysis. However, this analysis does
terms such as "service delivery" and "service delivery agents" are include a period during the late 1970s and early 1980s, when local
used instead. governments faced intergovernmental, economic, and demographic
2. International City Management Association, "Municipal Transfer of conditions whose full impact is still being felt today.
Functional Responsibilities," Urban Data Service Report, vol. 7 12. Roland Liebert, Disintegration and Political Action (New York:
(September 1975); R. J. Oakerson, R. B. Parks, and H. A. Bell, Academic Press, 1976).
"How Fragmentation Works--St. Louis Style," paper presented at
13. Roland Liebert, ibid.; Thomas R. Dye and John A. Garcia,
the Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association
"Structure, Function and Policy in American Cities," Urban
(Chicago: August 27-September 1, 1987).
Affairs Quarterly, vol. 14 (September 1978), pp. 103-122; Robert
3. Edgar M. Hoover and Raymond Vernon, Anatomy of a Metropolis
Stein, "The Political Economy of Municipal Functional
(New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1962); Raymond Vernon,
Responsibility," Social Science Quarterly, vol. 63 (September
Metropolis 1985 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1982), pp. 530-548.
1960).
14. The alternative to the simple count proposed by Liebert is Clark's
4. Committee for Economic Development, Reshaping Government in
weighted index of functional performance. See Terry N. Clark,
Metropolitan Areas (New York: Committee for Economic
Lorna Ferguson, and Robert Shapiro, "Functional Performance
Development, 1970); Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Analysis: A New Approach to the Study of Municipal Expenditures
Relations, Profiles of County Government (Washington: U. S.
and Debt," Political Methodology, vol. 8, no. 2 (1982), pp. 87-123;
Government Printing Office, 1972).
also Robert M. Stein, op. cit.
5. See, for example, Elinor Ostrom, "Metropolitan Reform:
15. Mark Schneider, Suburban Growth (New Brunswick, OH: Kings
Propositions Derived from Two Traditions," Social Science
Court Publications, 1980).
Quarterly, vol. 53 (December 1972) pp. 474-493; Robert Bish, The
16. Roland Liebert, op. cit.; Paul Peterson, City Limits (Chicago:
Political Economy of Metropolitan Areas (Chicago: Markham,
University of Chicago Press, 1981); Roger Friedland, Power and
1971); E. S. Savas, Privatizing: The Key to Better Government
Crisis in the City (New York: Schocken Books, 1983); Paul Kantor
(Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers Inc., 1987).
with Stephen David, The Dependent City (Glenview, IL: Scott,
6. The recent work by Oakerson, Parks, and Bell, op. cit., is a good
Foresman and Co., 1988).
example of this approach.
17. Peterson, ibid.
7. E. S. Savas, op. cit.; Gerald Johnson and John G. Heilman,
18. Developmental expenditures include the following functions:
"Metapolicy Transition and Policy Implementation: New Feder-
streets and highways, sanitation, sewage, transportation, and utili-
alism and Privatization," Public Administration Review, vol. 47
ties. As noted, redistributive services encompass: health, hospitals,
(November/December 1987), pp. 468-478.
welfare, and housing/community development. Public safety
8. Vincent Marando and Robert Thomas, The Forgotten Governments
includes police and fire services.
(Gainesville: The University Presses of Florida, 1977).
19. Given the relatively unsatisfactory theoretical development of
9. Time (June 15, 1987), pp. 14-17; City/County Magazine (July
Peterson's concept of allocational services, this domain is dropped
1987), pp. 2-9.

JULY/AUGUST 1989

This content downloaded from 131.216.162.40 on Wed, 02 May 2018 20:53:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 352 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
from further study. Even Peterson has had problems with this cate-
gory: see Paul Peterson, Barry Rabe, and Kenneth Wong, When
Federalism Works (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1984).
20. In computing per capita expenditures, the entire county population
is included in the denominator. However, in incorporated areas the
county role is probably less, because cities assume a share of the
responsibility for service delivery. In the unincorporated areas,
counties are more likely to be the primary service delivery agency.
The procedure used here thus "averages" the importance of county
governments across different parts of metropolitan regions.
21. While the baseline of comparison for counties is suburban munici-
palities, a brief comparison with central cities' expenditures is
instructive. In 1972, the central cities in the 50 MSAs studied spent
$282 per capita, increasing to $630 per capita in 1982. Thus, while
central cities were by far the biggest spenders in metropolitan
regions, the rate at which they increased their expenditures (123
percent) was below the rate at which metropolitan county govern-
ments grew and less than the rate of inflation.
22. See Herbert Duncombe, Modern County Government (Washington:
National Association of Counties, 1977).
23. Paul Peterson, op. cit., 1981; Paul Kantor, op. cit.; Mark Schneider,
The Competitive City: The Political Economy of Suburbia
(Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, forthcoming).
24. Note that here public safety is distinct from criminal justice and
corrections. Jails and courts are traditionally handled by counties,
and data (not reported) show no evidence of cities moving into this
domain.
25. See also John J. Harrigan, Political Change in the Metropolis, 3d
ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1985), pp. 308-312.
26. See also Thomas R. Dye and John A. Garcia, op. cit.
27. The distribution of the 162 counties (and 1,452 suburban cities)
across regions is as follows: New England, 8 (21); Mid-Atlantic, 25
(368); South, 49 (242); North Central, 61 (610); West, 19 (210).
28. Also see Edwin Benton and Platon Rigos, Patterns of
Metropolitan Service Dominance: Central City and Central County
nment," American Political Science Review, vol. 51 (June 1957),
Service Roles Compared," Urban Affairs Quarterly, vol. 20 (March
pp. 330-345.
1985), pp. 285-302.
This content downloaded from 131.216.162.40 on Wed, 02 May 2018 20:53:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEW
29. See, e.g., David R. Morgan and John P. Pelissero, "Urban Policy:
Does Political Structure Matter?" American Political Science
Review vol. 74 (June 1980), pp. 999-1006; David R. Morgan and
Jeffrey L. Brudney, "Urban Policy and City Government Structure:
Testing the Mediating Effects of Reform," paper presented at the
annual meetings of the American Political Science Association
(New Orleans, August 28-September 1, 1985); Mark Schneider,
Competitive City, op. cit.
30. The classic arguments appear in Committee For Economic
Development, op. cit.; Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations, Profiles of County Government (Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972).; Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations, The Challenge of Local Government
Reorganization (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1974).
31. Herbert Duncombe, op. cit.; John DeGrove and Carolyn Lawrence,
"County Government Service Delivery," in Linda Ganschinietz,
ed., Decade for Decisions: 1976-1986 (Washington: National
Association of Counties, 1977), pp. 37-45.
32. Herbert Duncombe, op. cit.; Edwin Benton and Platon Rigos,
op. cit.
33. Following the County Yearbook, county governments are grouped
into three categories. The Advisory Commission on Intergover-
nmental Relations (ACIR) uses a somewhat more complex scheme,
dividing the council-administrator form into several subcategories.
34. See, for example, Mark Baldassare, The Growth Dilemma
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980);
John Logan and Harvey Molotch, Urban Fortunes (Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987); Mark
Gottdeiner, The Social Production of Urban Space (Austin:
University of Texas Press); Mark Schneider, Competitive City, op.
cit.
35. Lawrence J. R. Herson, "The Lost World of Municipal Gover-
JULY/AUGUST 1989