Down from Bureaucracy
THE AMBIGUITY OF
PRIVATIZATION AND
EMPOWERMENT
Subject
: Decentralization in government—United States
Community
power—United States
Power (Social sciences)—United States.
Privatization—United States.
United States—Politics and
government—20th century
Decentralization in government.
Welfare state.
Schools—Decentralization—Illinois—Chicago
Publisher
: Princeton University Pres
Summary :IT IS BY NOW commonplace to note that “decentralization” and “privatization”
are worldwide movements. Not only in Western Europe and the
United States, but also in the Third World, governments are trying to
lessen their presence (at least in the economy), unload state enterprises,
and rely more on private markets. At least in the Western democracies,
common themes are reducing the role of national government, lowering
public spending, reducing the direct provision of services, and intervening
less in the lives of citizens. In each society, however, these ideas have different
meanings and policies and raise different issues. In the United
States, decentralization, deregulation, and privatization are usually
thought of along two historic dimensions: the allocation of authority between
units of government and between state and market.Within organizations,
whether public or private, decentralization refers to the process
of assigning more responsibilities to lower organizational units.
The allocations and reallocations of organizational authority are conscious
activities. What drives them? In the United States, there are two
strands that are mutually reinforcing. The first is the taxpayer’s revolt,
which began in 1978 when California voters passed a referendum sharply
reducing the local property taxes. The antitax movement spread quickly
to the other states as well as the national government. Not only is it exceedingly
difficult to raise taxes, but there is also strong support to reduce
taxes. The taxpayer’s revolt—which shows no signs of abating soon—
plus national and state deficits have resulted in a significant downward
flow of governmental authority. As will be discussed more fully in subsequent
chapters, the federal government continues to mandate state programs,
and states continue to mandate county and local programs, but
neither provide sufficient funding. Despite recently enacted legislation
purporting to check federally imposed unfunded mandates, it is unlikely
that this situation will substantially change in the near future. This tactic
serves the interests of national and state politicians, but increases the responsibilities
at state and local levels. More and more public activities are
being carried out at the local level, and indeed, local taxes are increasing.