A Century of Municipal Reform in the United States

• Date: 01 July 2014
• Published date: 01 July 2014
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074014526299
• Subject Matter: Articles

American Review of Public Administration

2014, Vol. 44(4S) 11S –28S

© The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0275074014526299

arp.sagepub.com

Article

A Century of Municipal Reform

in the United States: A Legacy

of Success, Adaptation, and the

Impulse to Improve

Craig M. Wheeland1, Christine Kelleher Palus1,

and Curtis Wood2

Abstract

In this article, we examine the legacy of four progressive reforms intended to secure

“good” government—the model city charter, the council-manager plan, city management

professionalism, and bureaucratic service delivery. Our analysis integrates research by

historians, political scientists, sociologists, and public administration scholars, and provides a

unique multidisciplinary perspective on the legacy of success and adaptation of the municipal

reform movement. We use Hofstadter’s concept of a reform “impulse” in American political

culture to frame our analysis. We conclude with four observations on the future of municipal

reform, ultimately arguing that the impulse to “reform” continues to be a dominant driver

across both local government management and institutions.

Keywords

local government, municipal reform, governance, city management, progressive

Introduction

The Pulitzer prize-winning historian Richard Hofstadter (1955) labeled the era between 1890 and

1940 the “age of reform” (p. 3). The Populist movement in the 1890s gave way to the Progressive

movement, which dominated American public life between 1900 and 1920 (Griffith, 1974).

Hofstadter defined Progressivism as a broad “impulse toward criticism and change that was

everywhere so conspicuous after 1900, when the already forceful stream of agrarian discontent

was enlarged and redirected by the growing enthusiasm of the middle-class people for social and

economic reform” (Hofstadter, 1955, p. 5). Ernest Griffith (1974) suggested the nature of

Progressivism is “pragmatism with a conscience” (p. 10).

The Progressive movement was so appealing that both Republicans and Democrats involved

in national politics proudly claimed to be the part of the movement (Hofstadter, 1955).

Progressives shared an enthusiasm to fight corruption, attract good people to public service,

improve democratic processes and defeat political machines (Griffith, 1974). Progressives

1Villanova University, PA, USA

2Northern Illinois University, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Craig M. Wheeland, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Ave., Villanova, PA 19085, USA.

Email: craig.wheeland@villanova.edu

526299ARPXXX10.1177/0275074014526299American Review of Public AdministrationWheeland et al.

research-article2014

12S American Review of Public Administration 44(4S)

disagreed about particular items in the reform agenda, such as form of government (structural

reform) and the role of government in regulating business and providing new social services

(Griffith, 1974). The question of a bias in the social and economic interests promoted by

Progressivism has also been debated for many years (Banfield & Wilson, 1966; Bridges, 1997;

Griffith, 1974; Hays, 1974; Hofstadter, 1955; Pease, 1971; Weinstein, 1968; Wyman, 1974). As

a national movement made of many constituencies, Progressivism became a big tent that was

home to a variety of reform initiatives affecting all levels of government. Our focus in this article

is on municipal reform, which was a central goal of Progressivism. Indeed, leaders with a national

profile in this era, including Frank Goodnow, Woodrow Wilson, and Charles Beard, endorsed

municipal reforms, such as the short ballot and the council-manager plan (Stillman, 1974; Stone,

Price, & Stone, 1940).

In this article, we examine the legacy of four important Progressive reforms intended to secure

“good” government—the model city charter, the council-manager plan, city management profes-

sionalism, and bureaucratic service delivery. Our analysis, which integrates research by histori-

ans, political scientists, sociologists, and public administration scholars, provides a unique

multidisciplinary perspective on the legacy of success and adaptation of the municipal reform

movement, as well as the impulse for continued improvement. This reform “impulse” is best

defined by Hofstadter (1955, p. 16) who suggests that

[a] great part of both the strength and the weaknesses of our national existence lies in the fact that

Americans do not abide very quietly the evils of life. We are forever restlessly pitting ourselves against

them, demanding changes, improvements, remedies, but not often with sufficient sense of the limits that

the human condition will in the end insistently impose on us.

We use Hofstadter’s concept of a reform “impulse” in American political culture to frame our

analysis of each reform by first describing the original idea (our baseline) and then tracing the

adaptation of the idea to its present state. We conclude with four observations on the future of

municipal reform.

The Model City Charter: From Ideal to Flexible Structure

In his history of the National Municipal League (NML), Frank Mann Stewart (1950) suggests the

years from 1865 to 1895 were “justly described as the ‘Dark Ages’ of American municipal his-

tory” (p. 10). During this era, cities grew rapidly as the United States transitioned from an agricul-

tural to an industrial economy, experienced widespread migration from rural communities, and

had a large influx of immigrants. Municipal governments were ill-equipped to deliver services,

establish policies, and regulate growth. Reformers in each city struggled to find solutions for these

problems—in part because of the lack of research and publications on municipal government

(Fox, 1977; Stewart, 1950). Martin Schiesl (1977) suggests “governmental systems that had been

adequate for earlier communities were strained beyond their capacity to provide urban dwellers

with adequate services and efficient administration” (p. 1). Kenneth Fox (1977) argues that “indig-

enous innovations” in the late 1800s, such as the ward political machine, state legislative supervi-

sion of cities, city-wide political machines, the formally “weak” charismatic mayor, and the

formally “strong” mayor all failed to resolve the problems cities needed to address (pp. 1-5).

By the early 1890s, municipal reformers in different cities decided they needed a systematic,

nationally organized approach to reform to be successful. In January 1894, 29 good government

organizations from various cities met at a conference in Philadelphia to discuss

the best means for stimulating and increasing the rapidly growing demand for honest and intelligent

government in American cities and to discuss the best methods for combining and organizing the friends

of Reform so that their united strength may be made effective. (Stewart, 1950, p. 15)