Community Development Districts: The entrepreneurial side of government

In an effort to reduce the cost and size of government public service delivery has become more decentralized, flexible and responsive. Public entrepreneurship entailed, among other things, the establishment of special-purpose governments to finance public services and carry out development projects. Community Development Districts (CDDs) are a type of special-purpose governments whose purpose is to manage and finance infrastructure improvements in the State of Florida. They have important implications for the way both growth management and service delivery occur in the United States. This study examined the role of CDDs for growth management policy and service delivery by analyzing the CDD profile and activity, the contribution of CDDs to the growth management and infrastructure development as well as the way CDD perceived pluses and minuses impact service delivery. The study used a mixed methods research approach, drawing on secondary data pertaining to CDD features and activity, semi-structured interviews with CDD representatives and public officials as well as on a survey of public officials within the counties and cities that have established CDDs. Findings indicated that the CDD institutional model is both a policy and a service delivery tool for infrastructure provision that can be adopted by states across the United States. Results showed that CDDs inhibit rather than foster growth management through their location choices, type and pattern of development. CDDs contributed to the infrastructure development in Florida by providing basic infrastructure services for the development they supported and by building and dedicating facilities to general-purpose governments. Districts were found to be both funding mechanisms and management tools for infrastructure services. The study also pointed to the fact that specialized governance is more responsive and more flexible but less effective than general-purpose governance when delivering services. CDDs were perceived as being favorable for developers and residents and not as favorable for general-purpose governments. Overall results indicated that the CDD is a flexible institutional mechanism for infrastructure delivery which has both advantages and disadvantages. Decision-makers should balance districts’ institutional flexibility with their unintended consequences for growth management when considering urban public policies.

Is the Corporate Elite Fractured, or is there Continuing Corporate Dominance? Two Contrasting Views

This article compares two recent analyses of continuity and change in the American power structure since 1900, with a main focus on the years after World War II. The first analysis asserts that the “corporate elite” has fractured and fragmented in recent decades and no longer has the unity to have a collective impact on public policy. The second analysis claims that corporate leaders remain united, albeit with moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative differences on several issues, and continue to have a dominant collective impact on public policies that involve their major goals. After comparing the two perspectives on key issues from 1900 to 1945, the article analyzes the fractured-elite theory’s three claims about the postwar era: an activist government constrained the corporate elite, the union movement negotiated a capital-labor accord; and bank boards created policy cohesion among corporations. Finally, it compares the two perspectives on tax issues, health-care policies, and trade expansion between 1990 and 2010.