The Need for Local Government Reform in the United States
| Author | Alfred Diamant,William C. Havard |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591295600900412 |
| Published date | 01 December 1956 |
| Date | 01 December 1956 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
967
THE
NEED
FOR
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
REFORM
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
WILLIAM C.
HAVARD
AND ALFRED DIAMANT
University
of
Florida
OR
A
NATION
which
has
displayed
so
much
administrative
and
political
ingenuity
and
has
been
so
much
concerned
with
the
deduc-
~
tion
of
systematic
general
principles
from
detailed
studies
of
govern-
mental
organization,
the
United
States
has
shown
a
curious
disregard
for
the
over-all
problem
of
local
government.
Even
scholars
in
the
field
have
tended
to
compartmentalize
local
units
into
various
types
rather
than
to
relate
the
different
units
to
one
another
as
parts
of
a
total
level
of
govern-
ment.’
No
public
attempt,
for
example,
has
been
made
to
explore
the
implications
of
new
sociological,
political,
and
administrative
conditions
for
the
traditional
forms,
areas,
and
functions
of
local
government.
By
way
of
contrast,
this
country
has
experienced
several
successive
waves
of
official
as
well
as
private
studies
of
administrative
organization
at
both
national
and
state
levels;
and
more
recently
a
number
of
attempts
have
been
made
at
reappraising
the
intergovernmental
relationships
involved
in
the
federal
structure,
including,
most
prominently,
the
Report
by
the
President’s
Com-
mission
on
Intergovernmental
Relations.
,
In
terms
of
further
contrast,
the
British,
from
whom
the
United
States
inherited
its
local
structure,
have
been
much
concerned
with
the
general
problem
of
local
government.
A
long
list
of
royal
commissions
could
be
cited
whose
investigations
and
reports
have
influenced
the
structure
and
functions
of
local
government
ranging
in
time
all
the
way
from
the
Royal
Commission
on
the
Poor
Law,
1834,
to
the
Local
Government
Boundary
Commission
which
submitted
reports
in
1946
and
1947.
The
unitary
nature
of
British
government
makes
possible
uniform
treatment
of
local
government
through
acts
of
Parliament,
such
as
the
Municipal
Corporation
Acts
of
1835
and
1882
and
the
Local
Government
Acts
of
1888,
1894,
1926,
1933,
and
1948.
This
is
not
to
suggest
that
local
government
in
Brit-
ain
functions
perfectly
and
meets
all
the
needs
of
a
highly
urban
society
in
1955.
Actually
there
has
been
continuous
and
insistent
demand
for
local
government
reform,
especially
since
1945,
but
the
political
strength
repre-
sented
by
local
political
organizations,
the
association
of
local
public
offi-
cials,
and
other
interest
groups
has
prevented
far-reaching
reforms.
This
1
The
authors
concur
with
Professor
Roger
H.
Wells
in
his
judgment
that
the
tendency
to
divide
all
American
government
into
the
three
water-tight
levels
of
national,
state,
and
local
is
apt
to
prove
defective.
See
his
American
Local
Government
(New
York:
McGraw
Hill
Book
Co.,
1939),
p.
1.
Local
government
literature,
however,
has
tended
to
give
far
more
attention
to
these
vertical
relationships
than
to
the
horizontal
relations
among
cities,
counties,
townships,
and
special
districts.
968
was
the
case
even
when
a
Labour
Government
was
in
office
between
1945
and
1951,
intent
on
the
establishment
of
uniform
national
services
and
standards.
For
the
Labour
party,
long
before
it
became
a
major
party
on
the
national
scene,
had
elected
many
local
government
officials,
especially
in
the
industrial
cities.
There
were,
therefore,
a
large
number
of
Labour
members
in
the
House
of
Commons
who
resisted
any
sweeping
alterations
of
local
government,
with
which
they
have
been
identified
for
many
decades.2
2
Several
tentative
suggestions
may
be
advanced
to
explain
the
relative
neglect
of
the
general
problem
of
local
government
in
the
United
States.
In
the
first
place,
the
federal
system
greatly
complicates
the
situation.
In
a
unitary
state,
such
as
Great
Britain
or
France,
attention
can
easily
be
fo-
cused
on
the
national
legislature,
which
has
the
power
to
create,
modify,
and
abandon
the
local
units
of
government.
This
capacity
to
carry
out
reforms
which
will
apply
to
all
units
of
local
government
makes
it
possible
to
rationalize
local
government
units
and
functions
to
a
degree
not
conceiv-
able
in
a
federal
system.
Not
only
does
federalism
in
the
United
States
multiply
the
sources
from
which
local
authority
derives
by
forty-eight,
but
the
slowness
of
the
states
in
adopting
certain
types
of
governmental
programs
has
proved
a
serious
handicap
to
the
development
of
a
general
concern
with
local
government.
Aside
from
the
city-manager
group,
for
instance,
there
is
little
in
the
way
of
a
career
service
in
American
local
government,
despite
the
fact
that
many
cities
now
operate
their
own
merit
systems.
In
the
unitary
states
of
Western
Europe,
on
the
other
hand,
and
particularly
in
Great
Britain,
local
government
service
is
a
profession
in
every
sense
of
the
term.
Not
only
are
the
formal
protections
of
a
merit
system
maintained,
but
the
sociological
characteristics
of
the
English
local
civil
servant
differ
markedly
from
those
of
his
American
counterpart.
Whereas
the
British
local
administrator’s
position
definitely
places
him
in
a
class
status
which
is
national
in
scope
and
identifiable
in
terms
of
a
general
occupational
role,
the
Amercian
local
official
is
overwhelmingly
cast
in
the
role
of
local
politician,
and
occupies
a
class
status
which
varies
widely
from
place
to
place
and
often
depends
less
on
occupational
factors
than
on
matters
extraneous
to
his
governmental
position.
The
professional
status
of
the
English
administrator
encourages
objective
consideration
of
the
condition
of
local
government
by
removing
the
fear
of
political
consequences
from
such
inquiry;
and
supervision
of
local
government
on
a
national
scale
makes
it
possible
for
the
investigator
to
be
optimistic
about
the
possibility
of
implementing
his
recommendations
2
It
is
interesting
to
contrast
the
bibliographical
materials
on
British
local
government
with
those
on
its
counterpart
in
the
United
States.
The
great
majority
of
the
former
are
on
"Local
Government"
as
such,
while
the
latter
are
almost
all
specialized
in
terms
of
"Municipal,"
"Metropolitan,"
"County,"
or
"Rural"
government.
To continue reading
Request your trial