Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

In Federalist #9, Alexander Hamilton argued that highly decentralized political power could result in “an infinity of little, jealous, clashing, tumultuous commonwealths, the wretched nurseries of unceasing discord, and the miserable objects of universal pity or contempt.” Was he right?  I consider Hamilton’s predictions alongside two alternate explanations:  (1) small jurisdictions are committed to cooperation, and (2) small jurisdictions focus inward, avoiding either active conflict or active cooperation.

This paper evaluates a sample of sixteen suburbs from four metropolitan areas in the US, the divisiveness of their policy agendas, and the characteristics associated with variance in their agendas.  I use an original dataset of public documents where suburban elected officials communicate their policy agendas to constituents.  I consider multiple dimensions of their policy agendas.  To consider Hamilton’s argument, I evaluate when suburban policy agendas identify (a) threatening or competing social outgroups, and (b) threatening or competing political jurisdictions.  To consider cooperation, I evaluate when suburban policy agendas identify (c) positive externalities, (d) reciprocal relations with other jurisdictions, and (e) universal and impersonal criteria for selecting policy agendas.  To consider inward focus, I evaluate when suburban policy agendas identify (f) highly targeted policy with impact on discrete and narrow subpopulations, (g) initiatives to advance unique features and unique tastes within the jurisdiction, (h) the merits of an absence of agendas beyond a caretaking role.  Also, I consider how policy agendas vary according to different degrees of statewide institutional fragmentation, to the socioeconomic features of both a specific suburb and its metropolitan area, and to the racial and economic composition of both a specific suburb and its metropolitan area.

This work can contribute to the literatures on policy agendas and on suburban politics.  Much of existing US scholarship on policy agendas focuses on national government, state government, or large city jurisdictions.  Suburban jurisdictions have received relatively little attention in the US policy agendas literature, even though most Americans live in suburbs that are much smaller than the central cities that they surround.  Furthermore, most US scholarship on the rationales behind suburban policy has analyzed one or a very small number of suburbs.  This paper considers a greater number of suburban jurisdictions; as a result, it can more fully evaluate the effects of variation in suburbs’ political and social context.