PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 1 of 12

University of North Florida

Department of Political Science

PAD 4003 Public Administration, Fall 2015

Intergovernmental administration

Public Administrator of the Week

Photo credit

João Alves Filho

Governor, State of Sergipe *

Lecture goals: Discuss the nature of 'government' in the US, especially in terms of the complex

relations between America's 90,000+ governments.

*

It’s complicated! Given the 90,106 American governments reported in the 2012 Census of Governments, carried

out every five years by the US Census Bureau, interaction among these various bodies creates

obvious complications. For instance:

Someone who commits a crime in Jacksonville can be apprehended by St. Johns County

sheriffs.

Duval, Clay, St. Johns, and Putnam counties cooperate on cleaning up the lower St. Johns

River.

Much social work is funded at the federal level, but delivered at the state or local level.

Many other policies are mandated at the federal level, then carried out by the states or local

governments, without the feds picking up the cost: No Child Left Behind, for instance.

Things get more complex when intersectoral actors are brought into the mix. Occasionally

now social programs are paid for by federal funds, funneled through state/local government,

who contract the work out to nonprofits.

This is all part of the hideous complexity to which we referred in week one. This week's lecture

looks first at top down relations between the federal and state/local levels, then at 'bottom-

bottom' relations below the federal level.

U.S. not unique. It is worth noting that these interorganizational issues are not unique to the

US. The US is a federal system, by which is meant that there are strong sub-national

governments, typically with legislatures, that share power with the federal level. Just as the US

has fifty states (like Florida), Australia has six states (like Tasmania), Canada ten provinces (like

Nova Scotia), Brazil 26 states (like Sergipe), Switzerland 26 cantons (like Uri), Germany 16

Laender (like Hamburg), etc. See also the Forum of Federations.

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 2 of 12

U.S. is unusual. On the other hand, other countries don't have this power sharing. Local

government becomes more or less an administrative arm, carrying out policy established at the

federal level. France, for instance, is a 'unitary', non-federal state, in which power is centralized

in Paris. The French Prime Minister's website, for instance, has nothing that I can find on local

government. Years ago the site had a link to Aménagement du territoire, now Ministère de

l’Égalité des territories et du Logement, which I think translates to Ministry of Regional Equality

and Housing (what’s the French for wtf?). A click on the ‘organisation’ link under Ministère

indicates that the ministry deals with housing, defence and security, and intergovernmental

relations between the regions (‘villes’). My point: nothing says “ça m’est égal” like lumping

something with housing. In short, in the French system of government, policy is made in Paris.

New Zealand. Perhaps as a more accessible example for Americans who don't read French, New

Zealand is also a unitary state, in which the national government in Wellington dominates. This

is not to say that local government doesn't exist, and doesn't have some authority, but this is

heavily circumscribed, and the local authorities don't have the constitutionally guaranteed share

of power that federal states (provinces, cantons, laender, etc.) have. The country does feature

'local and regional councils'. Note the functions of these bodies:

“Many of your everyday activities are dependent on services provided by your local city,

district or regional council. These range from water flowing freely from your taps, applying

for a building permit, finding a car park so you can borrow books from the library, taking

your nieces and nephews to the park, putting out the rubbish for collection, to walking your

dog at night along well-lit streets.

“Other important local government activities include -

Writing and managing plans for your area's development, including management of the

natural and urban environment.

Making bylaws and enforcing them.

Participating in community partnerships and initiatives such as reducing crime,

increasing jobs or access to housing.

Civil defence planning and emergency preparedness.”

This is actually a bit more devolved than NZ was some years ago, but policy is still generally

made in Wellington.

Devolution and globalization

While on the topic, one of the oddities of the contemporary era is that the world is currently

experiencing contradictory trends of globalization and devolution. These trends are

contradictory because, well, globalization implies the erosion of national sovereignty upward, to

the regional or international level; while devolution implies the erosion of national sovereignty

downward, to the local level. Up or down: make up your mind!

U.K. as paradigmatic case. The United Kingdom is perhaps the most prominent example of

these contradictory trends. On the one hand the country is ceding (however unwillingly) power

upwards to the European Union. On the other, it is experiencing devolution, or shifting authority

from the national to the state/provincial level, with new parliaments in Wales and Scotland.

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 3 of 12

Centralization as failed experiment. The UK had long had a unitary structure, despite including

at least four distinct people within its traditional borders: English, Welsh, Scots and Irish; and in

UK terms when we say long, we mean long. Scotland and England were united in a common

parliament by the Act of Union in 1707, long after the English had conquered Scotland in

1563. The Scots are relative newcomers, as Wales was conquered in 1283. (The Irish have

always been a bit of a problem). Well despite these several centuries of centralization, the

country is now decentralizing, devolving authority back to the regional levels.

Good idea? Common justifications for federalism are

o Great geographical scope -- in the early days of the US, when there was no telephone,

telegraph, or email, it could take weeks to travel from Philadelphia to Massachusetts (not to

mention Washington to California). Decentralized government seemed a good idea.

Indeed, some people on the (lunatic) fringe of Australian politics argue that Australia

should chop up some of its existing states. Given that the US has 48 states in the

3,000,000 square miles between Canada and Mexico, and Australia has only six states

(and two territories) on its 3,000,000 square mile island, why not make more?

o Cultural diversity -- allow different groups to govern themselves, quelling fears of cultural

assimilation. Note that a federal structure has been proposed for post-Saddam Iraq, so that

the Sunnis and Kurds might be a bit less fearful of domination by the more numerous Shia.

And the US? How about further devolution in the United States? Frank Bryan, a lovably

eccentric, native Vermonter and University of Vermont political scientist, argues that

Vermont is pretty much the ideal size polity. Should the US be chopped up into 500 or so

states with 700,000 people each?

If not, how about reform of the federal system in the US? This country has 3,500,000 square

miles, 3,000,000 if you leave Alaska out. In a country of fifty states, each should be about

60,000 square miles. Similarly

with population: 300,000,000

people divided by 50 gives us

about 6,000,000 per state. So

what's up with New

England? Only Massachusetts

deserves to be a state, and then

only in terms of population (it is

too small for efficient land use

management) the others are too

small on both counts:

State to local relationships Creatures of the states. Local governments (cities, counties, townships, etc.) are creatures of

the states. The Florida Constitution, for instance, creates and regulates local government

offices (in Article 8), and county schools (Article 9). States "not only provide money, they

also regulate local government activities. State governments tell local governments what

taxes they can levy, what services they can provide, and what types of management systems

they must employ. In doing so, states provide needed uniformity, as in the case of highway

signs, as well as ensure minimum standards of performance, as in education or welfare

programs" (Denhardt and Grubbs, p. 104; see also Henry p. 427-8).

Table 1

Intergovernmental rationalization in the U.S.?

State land area Population

Average state 60,000 6,000,000

Maine 30,862 1,317,000

Rhode Island 1045 1,058,000

Vermont 9250 621,000

California 155,959 36,553,000

Texas 261,797 23,904,000

Florida 53,927 18,251,000 Source: World Almanac 2009

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 4 of 12

Home rule! However, the home rule ("all forms of local or regional self determination",

Henry 2013, p. 428) movement has started to challenge that.

Quality control. Still, states exercise some sort of quality control over the activities of local

governments which, popular perceptions to the contrary, have traditionally featured some of

the most corrupt, least democratic governments in America.

Mandates, and fiscal federalism! The above is a charitable characterization. Henry notes

that the fiscal federalism practiced by the Feds to the states, is mirrored by the states to

the local units of government. We saw this in Lecture 9, Table 7.

The local level

Chaos rules. The local level is the most chaotic, irrational component of American IGR:

"...many citizens live in one jurisdiction, work in another, shop in another, and pay taxes to

several" (Denhardt and Grubbs, p. 105).

As well “More than six out of ten Americans are governed, and taxed, by two or more layers

of the nation’s 39,044 counties, municipalities, and townships at once” (Henry 2013, p. 433

"...the fragmentation of government, especially in urban areas, often means that problems are

separated from the resources that might be employed to solve them. Wealthier cities have the

money; poorer cities have the problems" (Denhardt and Grubbs, p. 105). Consider Florida:

Richest counties in Florida (per capita income, 2010 Census):

Collier $37,046

St. Johns $36,027

Martin $35,772

Monroe $35,516

Palm Beach $33,610

Poorest counties in Florida

Union $13,657

Hardee $14,668

Hendry $14,734

Calhoun $15,091

Holmes $15,285

The region, by way of comparison:

Bradford $16,997

Putnam $18,402

Baker $19,593

Flagler $24,939

Duval $25,854

Clay $26,872

Nassau $29,089

Jurisdictional disputes. This is also where the oddest sort of jurisdictional clashes occur, as

cities and towns (which are governments) are in counties (which also have governments).

o Counties and cities (which have governments) are both in states (which are

governments), but states rule this relationship. Not so for the county/city relationship.

Local government trivia! (from Henry, p. 412, and The World Almanac 2009, Census Bureau’s

Census of Governments):

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 5 of 12

Counties

3031 counties in 2012 (down from only 3050 in 1942; down from 3034 in 2007)

Virginia (strong) v. Massachusetts (weak) models of country government

Called parishes in Louisiana, boroughs in Alaska

Texas has 254, Florida 66, Hawaii and Delaware three.

Most populous: Los Angeles County (9,818,664 in 2010, with Cook County, Illinois, second

at 5,195,060); Miami-Dade (2,498,017 people) is Florida's most populous county. Duval had

864,263.

Least populous: Loving County, Texas, with 82 people (up from 64 in 2007!); Liberty

County (8365) is Florida's least populous

Largest (land area): North Slope Borough, Alaska, is the largest (88,817 square miles, half

again as large as Florida’s 58,976 square miles, despite a population of barely 9000), San

Bernardino County, California is the largest outside of Alaska (20,053, over half the size of

Indiana). Florida's largest County is Collier (2025).

Smallest: New York County, New York (23 square miles, and 1.5 million people); Union is

Florida’s smallest (240 square miles)

Municipalities (cities)

o 19,519

o 1298 in Illinois, one in Hawaii (I'll go out on a limb and guess that this is Honolulu). Florida

has 410 municipal governments.

o A handful (especially in Virginia) are independent cities, meaning independent of their

counties.

o Five most populous: New York (8.5m), Los Angeles (3.9m), Chicago (2.7m), Houston

(2.2m), and Philadelphia (1.56m). Phoenix (which is growing fast at 1.54) will pass

Philadelphia (which is in slow decline) before the decade is out.

Townships

o 16,360 (in 20 states, down from 16,506 in 2007)

o In New England, they (towns) are the fundamental unit of local government, counties are

largely inert functions of the state.

o In Indiana (and much of the Midwest), townships "have very limited responsibilities; some

rural townships are no more than subdivisions of counties, with no powers of their

own... most (58 percent) have no full-time employees of their own" (p. 399).

School districts

o 12,880 in 45 states (down from 13,522 in 2007)

These are independent of municipalities and counties, though the state exercises

oversight.

Florida has only 95 ‘school district governments’: 66 county school systems, and 29

community college districts.

Special districts – 38,266, with innumerable functions (up from 35,356). 1100 (±) in Florida

(click here). Local examples:

Clay County Utility Authority.

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 6 of 12

Clay County Development Authority.

Duval County Research and Development Authority

Duval Soil and Water Conservation District

Fernandina Beach Community Redevelopment Agency

Florida Inland Navigation District.

Nassau County Housing Finance Authority

St. Johns River Water Management District

St. Augustine Port, Waterway and Beach District

St. Augustine-St. Johns County Airport Authority

Metropolitan areas

"There are, on average, in each metro area about 100 local governments, a growing number"

(Henry 2013, p. 408). About 2/5 of all local governments are in metro areas.

Ten most populous metropolitan areas (source: Bureau of Census):

New York (NY, NJ, PA), 18.4m

Los Angeles/Long Beach, 12.2m

Chicago (IL, IN, WI), 8.6m

Miami (FL), 5.5m

Philadelphia (PA, NJ, DE, MD), 5.4m

Dallas (TX), 5.1m

Houston (TX), 4.9m

Washington (DC, MD, VA), 4.6m

Atlantic, 4.5m

Boston (MA, NH, RI), 4.2

Jacksonville: 1.3m

For you Jaguar fans, the following metropolitan areas are larger than Jacksonville, but

do not have their own NFL team:

Los Angeles/Long Beach, 12.2m.

Las Vegas (1.9m)

Portland (OR), 1.8m. (Seattle: 180 miles)

Orlando (FL), 2.1m. (Tampa: 80 miles)

Las Vegas (NV), 2.0m.

San Antonio (TX), 2.1m. (Houston: 200 miles)

o Note that metropolitan areas are not governments, but rather units of analysis for

planning purposes.

Much cooperation occurs, whether through state-level coordination, local-to-local formal

coordinating mechanisms, or through informal links between local officials.

o Metropolitan planning organizations

o North Florida Transport Planning Organization

“The North Florida TPO is the independent regional transportation planning agency for

Duval and most of Clay , Nassau and St. Johns counties. Federal Statutes require

urbanized areas with 50,000 or more people to have a Metropolitan Planning

Organization . The TPO Board is comprised of elected officials and transportation agency

representatives. Under Board direction, the TPO is led by an Executive Director with

professional staff in transportation planning, modeling, communications and finance."

Suburban flight, and 'donut cities'

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 7 of 12

o Unigov and Indianapolis, consolidation and Jacksonville.

Top down relations

The development of Inter-Governmental Relations (IGR) Note the Constitutional origins of the US federal system, with the powers of the federal and

state levels specified in the US Constitution (article I, section 10 specifically indicates what

states can't do). It has often been pointed out, though, that the US is a fairly robust

federalism. Compared to Canada, for instance, in the US Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it

to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In other words, the powers of the federal level are specified, the states get the rest. In

Canada, Section VI, paragraphs 91 and 92 of the British North America Act state that

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and

House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of

Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act

assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces..."

In other words, the rights of the provinces are delimited, all else goes to the feds.

The local government level in the US, on the other hand, has no federal Constitutional

protection, being 'creatures of the states'.

The federal division of powers:

Table 2 -- The federal division of powers

Major powers for the federal government: Major implied powers of the states

Tax for federal purposes

Borrow on the nation's credit

Regulate foreign and interstate commerce

Conduct foreign relations and make treaties

Provide an army and navy

Establish and maintain a postal service

Protect patents and copyrights

Regulate weights and measures

Admit new states

"To make all Laws which shall be

necessary and proper for carrying into

Execution the foregoing Powers, and all

other Powers vested by this Constitution in

the Government of the United States, or in

any Department or Officer thereof.” Article

I, Section 8.

Tax for local purposes

Borrow on the state's credit

Regulate trade within the state

Make and enforce civil and criminal law

Maintain a police force

Furnish public education

Control local government

Regulate charities

Establish voting and election laws

"The powers not delegated to the United

States by the Constitution, nor prohibited

by it to the states, are reserved to the states

respectively, or to the people."

Source: Henry 2007, p. 351.

Number of governments -- in America has been shrinking: from 155,116 in 1942 to 81,831

by 1982 (then growing again the following decade). This shrinking was largely due to school

consolidation. As we’ve seen, this has rebounded since.

The 'cake' metaphors (Henry 2014, p. 413-5) indicate that the IGR situation has gotten

increasingly complex with modern life:

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 8 of 12

o The 'layer cake' suggested distinct, separate responsibilities (layers) for each of the

federal, state and local levels.

o The 'marble cake' suggested that the responsibilities of the three levels were getting

'whorled', or mixed up.

o The 'pound cake' suggested that the feds were getting a bit overbearing.

o The 'crumble cake' suggests that the feds are pulling back, especially in transfers to the

states. The metaphor might also be applied to 'devolution', as governments at all levels

resort to nonprofit organizations to provide services, or introduce market incentives.

o The ‘Angel Food Cake’, or Manna from Heaven federalism:

“In 2009, President Barack Obama, ‘the first genuinely big-city President the country

has had for nearly a century,’ radically reversed course. He created an Office of Urban

Affairs and an Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, and placed both in the White House.

Both offices symbolized a wider turnaround. Obama took on the twin pillars of federal

intergovernmental policy: fiscal federalism and regulatory federalism. As we review

later, he poured money into state and local coffers and lifted those governments out of the

mire of regulations and red tape into which they had slowly sunk over five decades”

(2013, p. 415).

Much to-ing and fro-ing has occurred, as Johnson's War on Poverty led to more central

(federal) control, Nixon's New Federalism sought to lessen this, Reagan's anti-government

attitudes saw the feds throw babies (programs) off the federal train to the state and local

level, with some hope that these levels would be able to catch them. Clinton and GW Bush

have maintained the general thrust of these policies.

The Courts (especially Supreme Court) is heavily involved in setting the parameters of IGR.

Fiscal federalism Fiscal federalism refers to financial relations between the state, local and federal levels.

o The money generally flows down -- citizens pour most of their tax dollars in at the

federal level, then a lot of that flows back down to state and local governments. Note the

"more than 660 federal grants-in-aid programs" (p. 385).

Categorical grants: 82% of federal aid, with requirements strictly specified and

monitored.

Matching funds from the

local/state level often required.

Block grants: 18%, fewer strings.

o Historical shifts (2007, p. 386-7):

1902: transfers less than 1% of

federal and state/local budgets.

1950: federal grants to state/local

now 7% of federal expenditures;

funds received made up 20% of

state/local revenue

1988: federal grants 11% of federal expenditures; receipts from feds made up 27% of

state/local revenues

c. 2006: federal grants 17% of federal expenditures; 31% of local revenue

Funding is critical in understanding IGR: "Although intergovernmental relations consist

of much more than money, financial questions are inevitably at the core of the process"

Table 3

Shifting shares of the fiscal federal pie

(% total government expenditures)

Federal State Local

c. 1900 34 8 58

1938 44 16 40

c. 2000 48 27 26

c. 2010 55 25 20 Sources: Henry 2004, p. 385; 2013, p. 415

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 9 of 12

(Denhardt and Grubbs 2003, p. 81). The amount of discretion, or the amount of strings

attached to federal money, is especially important here.

State and local perspective Devolution. The states have done well enough, managing to 'catch' a lot of the babies thrown

out of the window of the federal train. This has led to a different structure of service

provision in the US, with more services provided and paid for at the state/local level (albeit

with some equalization transfer payments). The logic behind this is that if the user pays, the

user might be a bit more careful with how the money is spent.

Mandates continue. On the other hand, while less reluctant to fund programs at the state and

local level, the feds continue to mandate what the state and local levels will do. These are

referred to as 'unfunded mandates' (Henry p. 419), and are considered controversial as, well,

if the feds want the states or local levels to do something, some argue that the feds should

pay for it.

o It's worth keeping in mind that some of these unfunded, top-down, big brother mandates

have been unabashedly good, like anti-discrimination rules, and anti-corruption

rules. Hence Joao Alves Filho...

o At the same time, there have unabashedly been an awful lot of them. Henry cites data

suggesting that 3 out of 10 state government workers exist because of federal mandates

(2007, p. 390; 2010, p. 422).

o In a decade or so of teaching public administration, more often than not in MPA

programs with numerous mid-career state and local government managers, I repeatedly

hear how the plethora of these mandates make it exceedingly difficult for small local

governments to function, in terms of keeping up with all the new rules. Henry notes that

one study found 3500 federal court decisions in a single year related to over 100 federal

laws. The local government trying to keep up on this would have to vet nearly ten court

decisions each day!

Keep in mind, too, that this doesn't necessarily mean that our system of government is

broke. It might just mean that our system of government -- which seeks to coordinate

and regulate interaction between 315,000,000 people, as well as the 6,200,000,000

people in the 190 other countries -- is very complex.

This is one reason why there has been some consolidation of local governments, as

small units of government might have been practical in the pioneer days, when the

county seat probably needed to be within a day's wagon ride of most homesteads; but

not in 2006, when counties have to vet 3500 federal court decisions per year.

Henry also notes that the grants-in-aid programs have been good for state and local

governments, which are able to 'skim' some 60% off of these grants by shifting their

own money out of the programs funded by the feds.

o Money, after all, is fungible.

Henry's suggestions for IGR:

Responsibilities that the feds should fully fund:

health care

social programs for the poor

research and development

central information gathering

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 10 of 12

transportation, things like air traffic control, coordinating the federal highways

system, and other interstate transport issues

Responsibilities that should feature shared funding

environmental programs and natural resource management

higher education (especially student grants and loans)

Responsibilities that should be left to the states

elementary and secondary education, skills training

housing

child care

highways, infrastructure

rural services and economic development

*

II. Bottom-bottom relations *

This odd (bottom-bottom) term refers to relations among actors beneath the federal level, among

those actors at the bottom of the power structure.

State to state relationships 'Full faith and credit'. When I moved here, Florida had to honour my Indiana driver's

license. This is due to the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the Constitution (Article IV,

Section 1). It would not, though, honour a Massachusetts marriage license issued to two

women. Hello?

Other elements of state to state relationships:

Competition

o For federal funds

o For environmental resources (including the right to dump)

o For jobs, throwing lavish amounts of money at corporations to attract employers.

Cooperation

o Advice. Many Americans refer to US federalism as '50 policy laboratories', as states may

try innovative policies. If they work, others may adopt them. If they fail, others may

save themselves the heartache of trying them.

o 'Interstate compacts', over a variety of issues. Note that these also cross national

boundaries. Canada has both a Council of Atlantic Premiers to coordinate policy among

the governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and

Newfoundland; and these provinces also take part in the Conference of New England

Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (which doesn’t seem to have a website any

longer?), which helps coordinate policy between New England and Atlantic Canada. One

of the things that gets the goat of all these folk: acid rain from Midwest power plants

killing their fish and forests.

States and economic development

The Constitution would seem to have states work through the federal government in their

interactions with the rest of the world. After all, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” However, a lot of research on 'entrepreneurial

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 11 of 12

state governments' show that states seek to influence how they are impacted by global forces,

short of ‘regulation’ of commerce.

o ‘Glocalization’. This has been referred to as ‘glocalization': the activities of sub-national (i.e.

below the national government: states and cities) governments in international economic

affairs. Ventriss later refers to this as 'global microdiplomacy', understood in the sense that

US international relations would be characterized as macro-diplomacy.

o Long history. Ventriss dates this state/local international economic entrepreneurship from the

1930s. What many Americans accuse Mexico, China, and other developing countries of

doing now, the US south (and other regions) did earlier in the 20th century in America: offer

conditions more favourable to business. This often meant offering to investors, workers who

would work for less, environmental rules that were less stringent, etc.

Tax incentives -- the tool of choice for attracting investment. In simplest terms, this

amounts to paying investors (through requiring them to pay less tax, and so making

others pay for services) to open shop in your community. Problems: see link.

Income tax revenue -- The logic of this is that even if the state or city doesn't get tax

revenues from the firm, it will get revenues from income taxes of their workers, as well

as from similar taxes from others who gain employment as a result of the economic

activity stimulated by the new factory.

o Retention! -- A second 'wave' of (probably better understood as a second perspective on) how

state and local governments can cope with globalization is through the retention and

stimulation of existing firms. It makes a lot of sense: rather than hoping to be the one of 300

cities trying to attract an overseas firm looking to locate in the US, focus on developing your

own existing firms to stay competitive, and expand their markets. The local community may

only have a one in ten chance of getting a local firm to think globally, but those one in ten

odds are better than the one in hundreds odds typically associated with trying to land the next

Toyota plant, not to mention that it is much less expensive (see previous link!).

o Capacity building -- A third perspective (wave) is capacity building, or just more broadly

focusing on making your state/community look more promising to investors. Oddly enough,

investors like good infrastructure (communications links), educated/trained workers, quality

of life, amenities, and such. Develop these (build it) and they will come.

Price or quality? Another way of looking at this is we can try to compete with Chinese

labour on price (cut taxes and so education, infrastructure, etc.) or quality (invest in

education, infrastructure, nut raise taxes to pay for it). Your choice…

Clusters. Related to this is the concept of 'clusters'. The idea here is that a community

will do best at (well) what it does best. Elkhart County, for instance, would be unlikely

to attract an aircraft manufacturer. It will, though, attract a manufactured home, van

conversion, recreational vehicle, and similar firm. It already has a mature industry in

these fields, with all the supporting services.

Note that this implies that Elkhart County will not, and will never, attract a significant

number of IT firms. It would be a waste of money for this community to try this.

Duval County, on the other hand, actually has a (slim) chance to pull this off. It has

an adequate educational infrastructure (UNF, JU and others), Web.com, and a good

environment that will attract workers.

o Get real. Perhaps the most important lesson of all this: economic development strategies are

about doing the possible, rather than the desirable (or about reality, rather than dreaming).

PAD 4003 lecture 12

Page 12 of 12

o Back to the first wave. As a result of all this (maybe despite all this!) states have been

especially fond of 'first wave' initiatives, with trade offices, trade missions, and such

overseas in key markets. Florida's key vehicle for this appears to be Enterprise Florida,

which has offices in 12 countries.

Summary: Jeez, I don't know. Perhaps the 90,000+ governments that we Americans have

chosen to have (Henry refers to failed referenda to amalgamate, p. 436) to govern us, is the

strongest indication of the complexity of public administration.

References:

Denhardt, Robert and Joseph Grubbs (2003). Public Administration: An Action

Orientation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Henry, Nicholas (2007). Public Administration and Public Affairs. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Ventriss, Curtis (2002). The rise of entrepreneurial state governments in the United States: the

Dilemma of public governance in an era of globalization." Administrative Theory &

Praxis, 24(1), p. 81-102.