Maximizing models of legislative choice

A number of recent studies have reported estimates of single equation and simultaneous equations models of the decisions of state legislatures. These investigations have been ‘economic’ ones, in the sense that considerations of the relative costs and benefits to some self-interested person or group capable of affecting legislative outcomes have motivated the choice of explanatory variables. Thus, perhaps implicitly, these studies have assumed utility maximization by some critical agent(s) in the political marketplace. This essay draws attention to the implications of this maximizing assumption for the proper specification and estimation of the associated empirical models.     

A theoretical basis for participatory planning

Arguments are presented for the reconsideration of models which guide planning behavior and structure planning organizations. Hierarchical organizations are contrasted with reticular organizations and the latter are presented as necessary for effective citizen participation. Legitimacy is presented as a fundamental basis of justifying planning action and historical shifts in forms of legitimacy are noted. Participation, as a form of legitimacy, and several aspects of participatory planning are discussed in terms of recent systems thinking. It is argued that participatory planning increases the effectiveness and adaptivity of the planning process and contributes adaptivity and stability to the societal system. Further, it is argued that citizen participation is an essential element in making the planning process a learning system. This leads to a strengthening of the definition and role of communities in the urban system, and to an unexpected requirement of planners who would adopt a participatory planning process.     

The states' scramble for federal funds: Who wins,who loses?

Interstate differences between federal expenditures and receipts are very large, generally favoring the southern and western states. The more slowly growing states of the northeast and midwest point to these imbalances as one source of their economic difficulties. The major source of disparity lies in revenue patterns, not in expenditure allocations. Reallocating federal expenditures on an equal per capita basis would reduce regional disparities in flows of federal funds by only about 25 percent. The principal regional beneficiary of equalized expenditures would be the midwest states of the Great Lakes region. However, contrary to the expectations of proponents of such redistribution, the southeastern states would also be major beneficiaries while the larger states of the mideast and New England would be hurt. Selective expenditure changes might be targeted more effectively to individual regions or states; but finding consistent, generally acceptable principles upon which to base such changes is a formidable problem.