Assessing Public Expenditures in Small Towns

• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Date: 01 June 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17703166
• Author: David J. Helpap
• Subject Matter: General Interest

General Interest

Assessing Public Expenditures

in Small Towns: Beyond Roads

and Fire Engines

David J. Helpap

1

Abstract

Large, urban governments often provide a tremendous variety of public goods, while the expen-

ditures of small communities usually address basic needs such as fire protection and road mainte-

nance. However, certain small local governments dedicate significant public resources to recreation,

culture, and public health services, among others. This research examines the variation in services

provided by these smaller, often overlooked governments. Differences are explained, at least

partially, by various community characteristics, location, and capacity. For the millions of people who

reside in these communities, the findings illustrate why variations exist and what, potentially, can be

done to alter expenditure levels.

Keywords

expenditures, public goods, towns, small communities, local governments

Local governments provide many of the ser-

vices citizens encounter on a daily basis. How-

ever, the number and array of services are not

consistent across communities. The most

obvious explanation for these differences

involves the size of a community. The expen-

ditures of large, urban governments, for exam-

ple, generally are used to provide a wide array

of public goods that includes police and fire

protection, street maintenance, sewer and

water infrastructure, health and human ser-

vices, and a host of recreation and cultural

amenities. In contrast, the expenditures of

smaller, typically rural communities often are

associated with basic needs such as fire pro-

tection and road maintenance (Folz and

French 2005; Maher and Johnson 2008).

Explaining variations in the provision of

public goods is not as simple as this discussion

implies, however. Large urban communities,

despite having the population base and

property values needed to support a robust mix

of public goods, often are challenged to pro-

vide even basic levels of service. At the same

time, certain smaller and more rural commu-

nities have dedicated significant public

resources to cultural institutions, social ser-

vices, sanitation, parks, recreational facilities,

and beautification programs. In fact, many

small communities now provide services that

generally mirror those of larger municipalities

in metropolitan areas (Diaz and Green 2001;

Maher and Johnson 2008).

1

Departmentof Public and Environmental Affairs,University

of Wisconsin–GreenBay, Green Bay, WI, USA

Corresponding Author:

David J. Helpap, Department of Public and Environmental

Affairs, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, 2420 Nicolet

Drive, Green Bay, WI 54311, USA.

Email: helpapd@uwgb.edu

State and Local GovernmentReview

2017, Vol. 49(2) 75-86

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17703166

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg