1932

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a surge in the study of representation and elections in local politics. Scholars have made progress on many of the empirical barriers that stymied earlier researchers. As a result, the study of representation and elections in local politics has moved squarely into the center of American politics. The findings of recent research show that local politics in the modern, polarized era is much more similar to other areas of American politics than previously believed. Scholars have shown that partisanship and ideology play important roles in local politics. Due to the growing ideological divergence between Democrats and Republicans, Democratic elected officials increasingly take more liberal positions, and enact more liberal policies, than Republican ones. As a result, despite the multitude of constraints on local governments, local policies in the modern era tend to largely reflect the partisan and ideological composition of their electorates.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-071108
2019-05-11
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/22/1/annurev-polisci-050317-071108.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-071108&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adrian CR 1952. Some general characteristics of nonpartisan elections. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 46:766–76
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ansolabehere S, Schaffner BF 2017. CCES Common Content, 2016 Harvard Dataverse, V4 https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GDF6Z0
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ansolabehere S, Snyder JM 2002. The incumbency advantage in US elections: an analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Elect. Law J. 1:315–38
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anzia SF 2013. Timing and Turnout: How Off-Cycle Elections Favor Organized Groups Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anzia SF 2019. When does a group of citizens influence policy? Evidence from senior citizen participation in city politics. J. Politics 81:1–14
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arceneaux K 2005. Does federalism weaken democratic representation in the United States?. Publius: J. Fed. 35:297–311
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnold RD, Carnes N 2012. Holding mayors accountable: New York's executives from Koch to Bloomberg. Am. J. Political Sci. 56:949–63
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bailey MA, Rom MC 2004. A wider race? Interstate competition across health and welfare programs. J. Politics 66:326–47
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Berry CR, Gersen JE 2010. The timing of elections. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 77:37–64
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Berry CR, Howell WG 2007. Accountability and local elections: rethinking retrospective voting. J. Politics 69:844–58
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Boudreau C, Elmendorf CS, MacKenzie SA 2015. Lost in space? Information shortcuts, spatial voting, and local government representation. Political Res. Q. 68:843–55
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Broockman DE, Skovron C 2018. Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112:542–63
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Burnett CM 2017. Parties as an organizational force on nonpartisan city councils. Party Politics https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817737996
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Burnett CM, Kogan V 2017. The politics of potholes: service quality and retrospective voting in local elections. J. Politics 79:302–14
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cann DM 2018. The structure of municipal political ideology. State Local Gov. Rev. 50:37–45
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Caughey D, Warshaw C 2018. Policy preferences and policy change: dynamic responsiveness in the American states, 1936–2014. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112:249–66
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Caughey D, Warshaw C, Xu Y 2017. Incremental democracy: the policy effects of partisan control of state government. J. Politics 79:1342–58
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cent. Am. Women Politics. 2016. Women in Elective Office 2016 New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-elective-office-2016
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Choi SO, Bae SS, Kwon SW, Feiock RC 2010. County limits: policy types and expenditure priorities. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 40:29–45
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Connolly JM, Mason DP 2016. Ideology and local public expenditure priorities. Political Res. Q. 69:830–41
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Craw M 2010. Deciding to provide: local decisions on providing social welfare. Am. J. Political Sci. 54:906–20
    [Google Scholar]
  22. de Benedictis-Kessner J 2018a. Off-cycle and out of office: election timing and the incumbency advantage. J. Politics 80:119–32
    [Google Scholar]
  23. de Benedictis-Kessner J 2018b. How attribution inhibits accountability: evidence from train delays. J. Politics 80:1417–22
    [Google Scholar]
  24. de Benedictis-Kessner J, Warshaw C 2016. Mayoral partisanship and municipal fiscal policy. J. Politics 78:1124–38
    [Google Scholar]
  25. de Benedictis-Kessner J, Warshaw C 2019. Politics in forgotten governments: the partisan composition of county legislatures and county fiscal policies. J. Politics In press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Einstein KL, Glick D, LeBlanc C 2017. 2016 Menino survey of mayors Rep. Boston Univ. Initiat. Cities Boston, MA: https://www.bu.edu/ioc/files/2017/01/2016-Menino-Survey-of-Mayors-Final-Report.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Einstein KL, Glick DM 2018. Mayors, partisanship, and redistribution: evidence directly from US mayors. Urban Aff. Rev. 54:74–106
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Einstein KL, Kogan V 2015. Pushing the city limits: policy responsiveness in municipal government. Urban Aff. Rev. 52:3–32
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Einstein KL, Palmer M, Glick D 2019. Who participates in local government? Evidence from meeting minutes. Perspect. Politics 17:28–46
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Erikson RS 1989. Economic conditions and the presidential vote. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 83:567–73
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Erikson RS, Wright GC, McIver JP 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Farris EM, Holman MR 2017. All politics is local? County sheriffs and localized policies of immigration enforcement. Political Res. Q. 70:142–54
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ferreira F, Gyourko J 2009. Do political parties matter? Evidence from US cities. Q. J. Econ. 124:399–422
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ferreira F, Gyourko J 2014. Does gender matter for political leadership? The case of US mayors. J. Public Econ. 112:24–39
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fowler A, Hall AB 2014. Disentangling the personal and partisan incumbency advantages: evidence from close elections and term limits. Q. J. Political Sci. 9:501–31
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gerber ER 2013. Partisanship and local climate policy. Cityscape 15:107–24
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gerber ER, Hopkins DJ 2011. When mayors matter: estimating the impact of mayoral partisanship on city policy. Am. J. Political Sci. 55:326–39
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gilens M 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gillion D, Ladd J, Meredith M 2018. Party polarization, ideological sorting and the emergence of the U.S. partisan gender gap. Br. J. Political Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000285
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hajnal ZL 2009. America's Uneven Democracy: Race, Turnout, and Representation in City Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hajnal ZL, Lewis PG 2003. Municipal institutions and voter turnout in local elections. Urban Aff. Rev. 38:645–68
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hajnal ZL, Trounstine J 2005. Where turnout matters: the consequences of uneven turnout in city politics. J. Politics 67:515–35
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hajnal ZL, Trounstine J 2010. Who or what governs? The effects of economics, politics, institutions, and needs on local spending. Am. Politics Res. 38:1130–63
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hajnal ZL, Trounstine J 2014. What underlies urban politics? Race, class, ideology, partisanship, and the urban vote. Urban Aff. Rev. 50:63–99
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Healy A, Lenz GS 2017. Presidential voting and the local economy: evidence from two population-based data sets. J. Politics 79:1419–32
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Holbein J 2016. Left behind? Citizen responsiveness to government performance information. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 110:353–68
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Holbein JB, Dynes A 2018. Noisy retrospection: the effect of party control on policy outcomes Work. Pap., Brigham Young Univ. Provo, UT:
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Holman MR 2014a. Sex and the city: female leaders and spending on social welfare programs in US municipalities. J. Urban Aff. 36:701–15
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Holman MR 2014b. Women in Politics in the American City Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Holman MR 2017. Women in local government: what we know and where we go from here. State Local Gov. Rev. 49:285–96
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hopkins DJ 2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hopkins DJ, McCabe KT 2012. After it's too late: estimating the policy impacts of black mayoralties in US cities. Am. Politics Res. 40:665–700
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Hopkins DJ, Pettingill LM 2018. Retrospective voting in big-city US mayoral elections. Political Sci. Res. Methods 6:697–714
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Howell SE, Perry HL 2004. Black mayors/white mayors: explaining their approval. Public Opin. Q. 68:32–56
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Karnig AK, Welch S 1980. Black Representation and Urban Policy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kellogg LD, Gourrier AG, Bernick EL, Brekken K 2017. County governing boards: Where are all the women?. Politics Groups Identities. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1304223
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kirkland PA 2018. The business of being mayor: mayors and fiscal policy in U.S. cities Work. Pap., Princeton Univ. Princeton, NJ:
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kogan V, Lavertu S, Peskowitz Z 2016. Do school report cards produce accountability through the ballot box?. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 35:639–61
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kogan V, Lavertu S, Peskowitz Z 2018. Election timing, electorate composition, and policy outcomes: evidence from school districts. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:637–51
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Ladd HF, Yinger J 1989. America's Ailing Cities: Fiscal Health and the Design of Urban Policy Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lax JR, Phillips JH 2012. The democratic deficit in the states. Am. J. Political Sci. 56:148–66
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lee DS, Moretti E, Butler MJ 2004. Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the U. S. House. Q. J. Econ. 119:807–59
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Lubell M, Feiock RC, La Cruz D, Ramirez EE 2009. Local institutions and the politics of urban growth. Am. J. Political Sci. 53:649–65
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Macartney H, Singleton JD 2018. School boards and student segregation. J. Public Econ. 164:165–82
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Marschall M, Shah P 2018. The local elections in America project (LEAP) http://www.leap-elections.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  66. MIT Election Data and Sci. Lab. 2018. Local precinct-level returns 2016 Harvard Dataverse https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Q8OHRS
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. National League of Cities. 2016. City Councils Washington, DC: Natl. League Cities https://www.nlc.org/city-councils
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Oliver JE, Ha SE 2007. Vote choice in suburban elections. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 101:393–408
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Oliver JE, Ha SE, Callen Z 2012. Local Elections and the Politics of Small-scale Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Palus CK 2010. Responsiveness in American local governments. State Local Gov. Rev. 42:133–50
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Payson JA 2017. When are local incumbents held accountable for government performance? Evidence from US school districts. Legis. Stud. Q. 42:421–48
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Peterson E 2017. Paper cuts: how reporting resources affect political news coverage Work. Pap., Texas A&M Univ. College Station, TX:
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Peterson PE 1981. City Limits Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Rae DW 2003. City: Urbanism and Its End New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Sances MW 2017. When voters matter: the growth and limits of local government responsiveness Work. Pap., Univ. Memphis Memphis, TN:
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Sances MW 2018. Ideology and vote choice in U.S. mayoral elections: evidence from Facebook surveys. Political Behav 40:737–62
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Sances MW, You HY 2017. Who pays for government? Descriptive representation and exploitative revenue sources. J. Politics 79:1090–94
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Schaffner BF, Rhodes JH, La Raja RJ 2016. Race- and class-based inequality and representation in local government Work. Pap., Univ. Mass. Amherst, MA: http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_rhodes_laraja_apsa_2016.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Schaffner BF, Streb M, Wright G 2001. Teams without uniforms: the nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Res. Q. 54:7–30
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sharp EB 1997. A comparative anatomy of urban social conflict. Political Res. Q. 50:261–80
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Shor B, McCarty N 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:530–51
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Stimson JA, MacKuen MB, Erikson RS 1995. Dynamic representation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 89:543–65
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Tausanovitch C, Warshaw C 2013. Measuring constituent policy preferences in Congress, state legislatures, and cities. J. Politics 75:330–42
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Tausanovitch C, Warshaw C 2014. Representation in municipal government. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 108:605–41
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Thompson DM 2018. How partisan is local law enforcement? Evidence from sheriff cooperation with immigration authorities Work. Pap. Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Thrower S 2018. The Study of Executive Policymaking in the U.S. States Presented at the University of Southern California Political Institutions and Political Economy Symposium on Studying Subnational Policymaking Los Angeles, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Trounstine J 2009. All politics is local: the reemergence of the study of city politics. Perspect. Politics 7:611–18
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Trounstine J 2010. Representation and accountability in cities. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 13:407–23
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Trounstine J 2011. Evidence of a local incumbency advantage. Legis. Stud. Q. 36:255–80
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Trounstine J 2018. Political schizophrenics? Factors affecting aggregate partisan choice at the local versus national level. Am. Politics Res. 46:26–46
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Trounstine J, Valdini ME 2008. The context matters: the effects of single-member versus at-large districts on city council diversity. Am. J. Political Sci. 52:554–69
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Verba S, Schlozman KL, Brady HE 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Vogl TS 2014. Race and the politics of close elections. J. Public Econ. 109:101–13
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Warshaw C 2016. The application of big data in surveys to the study of elections, public opinion, and representation. Computational Social Science RM Alvarez 27–50 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-071108
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-071108
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error