Urban Public Policy

Abstract

This article will focus on urban public policy in the United States. National and state urban public policies, and how they influence life and resources in American cities, will be described. The history and purpose of the US Code, and how the laws pertain to and control urban public policy, will be described in detail. The four main stages of the policy cycle, including policy agenda setting, policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy evaluation, will also be analyzed. The issue and challenge of funding urban public policy will be introduced.

Overview

Public policy refers to the basic policy or set of policies that serve as the foundation for public laws. Public policy is often characterized as a social goal, enabling objective, or social solution. The public policy process is a problem-solving activity that solves or resolves a problem or conflict in society. Public policy, requested by society and enacted by government, unites and mediates the relationship between society and government. Public policy is created within a specific historical context, socio-cultural context, and political system.

Public policy encompasses and regulates nearly all areas of human and social behavior. One particularly large body of public policy concerns urban areas and their inhabitants. Regional and urban public policy refers to a broad range of social, economic, and related public policy issues that affect the quality of life and the economic well-being of people in cities. For example, urban public policy regulates and oversees contemporary urban problems such as health care, education, economic development, employment and training, nonprofit sector, immigration, housing and land development, welfare, drug control, environmental policy, transportation, local government, leadership, social policy, information access, poverty, historical preservation, and community development. Urban public policy is implemented by a wide variety of local, state, and federal agencies.

Contemporary urban public policy (along with urban affairs and urban planning) works to improve the experience of city living around the world. In 2017 in the United States, 82 percent of Americans lived in urban areas, according to the Central Intelligence Agency (Central Intelligence Agency, 2018). Cities, with high concentrations of population and annual spending power, influence both the nation's economy and its position in the global economy. Despite substantial resources, American cities are considered to be in crisis as evinced by state and city fiscal budget deficits, unemployment, and struggling public schools (“A New Direction,” 2006).

Urban public policy in the United States, which has existed in some form since federal and state governments came into their current forms as specified in the US Constitution, has always reflected the needs of society at the time the policy was developed and implemented. For example, much of twentieth-century public policy, created in response to the World Wars and cycles of economic depressions, centered on economic development (Weiner, 2005).

There have been numerous examples of urban public policy that significantly changed life in American cities. For example, the Housing Act of 1954, which replaced public housing with commercially oriented urban renewal in numerous cities, is believed to have marked a historic turn in housing policy and federal-city relations. The Housing Act, which facilitated new alliances between mayors of major cities and business groups, created national consensus around urban redevelopment policies (Flanagan, 1997). In addition to the tendency of significant urban policy to change lives in American cities, life in American cities, such as significant social events, can also shape and change the direction of urban public policy. For example, the 1992 Los Angeles race riots brought the issues of poverty and race relations to the forefront of policy agendas.

Pinto and Sablik (2017) noted that by the second decade of the twenty-first century, several major US cities had experienced a decline in population and, subsequently, economic prosperity. In an examination of this phenomenon, they suggest that urban policy makers have two main options for approaching such situations: implementing policies that focus on people or on the place (city) itself. Discussion of such policies includes the designation of enterprise zones, economically struggling areas that receive tax credits to attract more businesses, as well as investing in residents' human capital.

The focus of this essay will be on national or federal urban public policy and the public policy making process. Urban public policy in the United States, while developed at the federal and state level, is a product of the federal government's public policy process. The federal government-city government relationship is controlled by the proscribed structure and rights granted in the US Constitution. Congress supports and controls urban public policy, in part, through the grants-in-aid provided to state governments.

The following sections describe national and state urban public policy in the United States. These sections serve as foundation for discussions, later in this essay, about the public policy process and the issue of funding urban public policy.

Federal Urban Policy. National urban policy, once approved by Congress, becomes part of United States Code (USC). The Code is defined as the consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. The Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the US House of Representatives prepares and publishes the United States Code pursuant to section 285b of title 2 of the Code.

Title 42 of the Code concerns "The Public Health and Welfare." Title 42, which includes 148 chapters of case law, summarizes the federal government's law concerning National Urban Policy New Community Development (Chapter 59). The Congressional statement of purpose introducing Chapter 59 describes Congress's goals and roles in urban policy:

Other Title 42 chapter law covers the public health service, sanitation and quarantine, leprosy, cancer, social security, low-income housing, unemployment, poison control programs, public safety officers, election administration improvement, and over one hundred other categories of law. This does not include regulations issued by executive branch agencies, decisions of the federal courts, treaties, or laws enacted by state or local governments.

In addition, the Code (as specified in Title 42, Chapter 59, Part A, section 4503) requires the president to submit a National Urban Policy Report every odd-numbered year to aid Congress in drafting current and socially responsive urban public policy. The National Urban Policy Report is required to include the following elements:

• Information, statistics, and significant trends relating to the pattern of urban development for the preceding two years.
• Summary of significant problems facing the United States as a result of urban trends and developments affecting the well-being of urban areas.
• Examination of the housing and related community development problems experienced by cities undergoing a growth rate which equals or exceeds the national average.
• Evaluation of the progress and effectiveness of federal efforts designed to meet such problems and to carry out the national urban policy.
• Assessment of the policies and structure of existing and proposed interstate planning and developments affecting such policy;
• Review of state, local, and private policies, plans, and programs relevant to such policy.
• Current and foreseeable needs in the areas served by policies, plans, and programs designed to carry out such policy, and the steps being taken to meet such needs.
• Recommendations for programs and policies for carrying out such policy, including legislative or administrative proposals (“Chapter 59,” 2007).

The first National Urban Policy Report was issued by the Nixon White House in 1972 and concerned mainly issues of urban growth and urban decline. The report describes the major programs directed at solving problems in urban America. The National Urban Policy Reports (also called State of the Cities Report) express the point of view of each administration toward urban areas and problems. Reports since the 1990s have focused on issues such as urban households, urban infrastructure, the role of neighborhoods, unemployment, addiction, education, and transportation.

State Urban Policy. At the state level, urban policy is subject to the influences of distinctive gubernatorial and mayoral regimes that control policy decisions. State and local leaders, economic development agencies, planning departments, and city managers work together to direct and shape the present and future American cities based on their respective perspectives and worldviews. For example, during the 1970s, state and city governments, in response to global competition and economic restructuring, began changing their local tax rates and offering selective incentives to attract and keep businesses and commercial enterprises. States offered tax abatements for business development and programs designed (such as low cost loans, free labor training, and government assumption of site preparation and infrastructure cases) to reduce the operating expenses of corporate businesses.

The logic of and preference for economic development as the best way to ensure the prosperity of American cities, that characterized the 1970s, has not been adopted by all state regimes. Different state regimes desire and create different outcomes in and for American cities.

There are six main types of state government regimes responsible for the state government urban policy legislation. These six regimes include:

• Entrepreneurial Regimes: regimes lead by political entrepreneurs who promote the idea that economic development is in the community's best interest.
• Caretaker Regimes: regimes that preserve the status quo in power relations and resource distribution.
• Player Regimes: regimes that manage the conflict between business and community groups and participate in all areas of government influence.
• Stewardship Regimes: regimes that base policy choices on the business sector's obligations to community.
• Progressive Regimes: regimes that participate in decisions concerning the allocation of development benefits based on equality for students. Example policy priories include fair wages and jobs for minorities.
• Demand-Side Regimes: regimes with development strategies aimed at small business creation and neighborhood revitalization.

The regime theory of urban public policy encourages federal and state governments, policy organizations, and citizens to recognize the issue of diversity in interests, goals, and objectives for American cities. The regime approach to the analysis of urban policy making has been widely adopted in urban policy "think tanks" (Clark, 2001).

Public Policy Process. Public policy, including urban public policy, is created within or through a policy cycle. The policy cycle process involves both politics and administration. The public policy process includes four major stages:

• Agenda setting
• Policy formulation
• Implementation
• Evaluation

These steps are usually though not always sequential. There are numerous actors involved in each stage of the policy cycle. There is little agreement on the essences of these roles. The major players in the policy process are referred to as policy entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, issue initiators, policy brokers, strategists, fixers, brokers, or caretakers.

While public policy is created by politicians and legislative representatives, public administrators are responsible for policy implementation. In policy implementation, administrators are granted varying degrees of discretion regarding the details, range, and scope of the policy. Public policy administrators are allowed to do the following:

• Fill in the details of legislation.
• Define appropriate levels of program performance.
• Exercise other kinds of program judgment as needed.

Examples of discretionary choices made by public policy administrators include rule making, adjudication, law enforcement, and program operations. In addition to the influence provided by implementation discretion, policy administrators may provide advice and counsel to political officials through reports, testimony, recommendations, monthly economic indices, and legislative proposals. Public administrators, in some instances, work in collaboration with judges and interest groups to force politicians to strengthen or create new public policies and services. Policy implementation and public administrative action in general, is watched over by the legislature, the chief executive's staff, and agency political appointees (Skok, 1995).

In addition to the influence that public administrators exert on public policy formation and implementation, there are, at least, two other main policy-influencing groups: industry-driven interest groups and non-profit policy organizations. Interest groups and policy organizations are most often private sector rather than public sector, governmental entities.

Interest groups refer to nongovernmental organizations actively trying to influence public policy. For example, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. created their policy-focused unit IEEE-USA in 1973 to support the public policy interests of their members. IEEE-USA's mission as outlined in the IEEE Bylaws is to "recommend policies and implement programs specifically intended to serve and benefit the members, the profession, and the public in the United States in appropriate professional areas of economic, ethical, legislative, social and technology policy concern." IEEE-USA's public policy priority issues for 110th Congress, 1st Session (2007) included innovation and competitiveness, energy independence, critical infrastructure protection, immigration reform, engineering workforce security, e-health, and patent reform.

Nonprofit policy organizations, such as the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Urban Institute, and Brookings Institute, serve as a link between politicians, academic research, and public policy. Policy organizations often referred to as "think tanks," engage in academic research on public policy issues in a time-sensitive manner and translate the research into understandable, non-technical language for non-specialists. Policy organizations may have policy agendas but their nonprofit status separates them from the commercial interests of industry special interest groups such as IEEE-USA (Schuyler, 2006).

Ultimately, public policy, influenced by public and private forces and interests, is developed, implemented, and evaluated within policy issue networks. Policy issue networks refer to communities composed of specialists representing public and private sector interests (Skok, 1995).

Issues

Funding Urban Public Policy. Once policies have been developed at either the federal or state level, they require funds for administration and implementation. Urban public policy and urban fiscal policy must complement each other for American cities to function. Congress established the modern system of grants-in-aid to support state and local governments in the early twentieth century. Grants-in-aid refer to the federal funds appropriated by Congress for distribution to state and local governments in order to implement and support public policy initiatives. Congress awards four kinds of fiscal grants:

• Categorical grants: federal funds that can only be used by states for a pre-determined purpose.
• Block grants: federal funds given automatically to state and communities to support community development and social services programs and needs.
• Project grants: federal funds awarded on the basis of the merits and strengths of an application.
• Formula grants: federal funds awarded based on a set of legislative or regulatory formula.

The funds for state and local budgets come from federal grants, as described above, as well as indirect taxes and personal income taxes. Trends in government grants to state and local governments have followed social and public policy interests over the past few decades. For example, state and local spending during the latter half of the 20th century was characterized by the need to finance and support education and Medicaid (Penner, 1998).

Even with significant federal grants-in-aid, American cities are considered to be in social and economic crisis (as measured by budget deficits, failing schools, and unemployment). Different public policy institutes offer very different perspectives on and solutions to the problem of funding urban public policy. For example, the Cato Institute, a nonprofit public policy research foundation committed to broadening the public policy debate to include the principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace, argues that American cities are financially troubled for two main reasons. First, many American cities send more tax funds to Washington than they receive in support and aid. Second, many American cities are burdened by unfunded mandates. Unfunded mandates, as described by the Cato Institute, are a method used by federal lawmakers to intervene in the affairs of state and local governments. A significant portion of many city budgets are devoted to complying with unfunded federal mandates.

In contrast to the Cato Institute's perspective, Living Cities, a nonprofit development agency founded on the idea and practice of public/private partnerships, wants more, not less, government involvement in American cities and urban policy. Living Cities “advocates policies that strengthen cities and increase opportunities for low-income neighborhoods and their residents to participate fully in the American and global economies” (www.livingcities.org). Living Cities wants significant and consistent federal funding. Living Cities' policy agenda includes: ensuring reliability in federal funding; providing flexibility in the use of federal funding; and fostering innovation through a new competitive challenge grant.

Conclusion

Public policy is designed to solve or answer a pressing problem or need in society. Public policy is, in its ideal form, supposed to be developed in response to the needs of citizens. American citizens, as well as those in other countries around the world, have been increasingly recognized as and compared to customers. The government (as well as special interest groups) engages in public policy marketing and, in a sense, "sells" policy to its citizens. Examples of the use of marketing instruments are market surveys conducted to assess citizens' needs and social marketing to promote certain social objectives (Buurma, 2001).

The federal government has a particular policy agenda for American cities and their inhabitants. The goals of National Urban Policy, as described in Title 42 of the US Code, include the following:

• National Urban Policy should promote coordination among federal programs to assist urban areas.
• National Urban Policy should enhance the fiscal capacity of fiscally distressed urban areas.
• National Urban Policy should promote job opportunities in economically distressed urban areas and to enhance the job skills of residents of such areas.
• National Urban Policy should generate decent and affordable housing.
• National Urban Policy should reduce racial tensions and combat racial and ethnic violence in urban areas.
• National Urban Policy should combat urban drug abuse and drug-related crime and violence.
• National Urban Policy should promote the delivery of health care to low-income communities in urban areas.
• National Urban Policy should expand educational opportunities in urban areas.
• National Urban Policy should achieve the goals of the national urban policy (“Title 42,” 2007).

The National Urban Policy goals described above, while seemingly unassailable, are potentially complicated by funding issues and differing policy agendas. Federal financing of state governments, and thus the administration and implementation of public policy, is often complicated and hindered by unfunded mandates. In addition, state and local government regimes often have different goals for American cities; federal and state governments do not always share the same urban public policy agendas.

Terms & Concepts

Congress: The United States government's legislature granted the power to make laws.

Deficit: The amount of money which a government, company, or individual spends which exceeds its income.

Federal Government: A form of government in which a group of states recognizes the sovereignty and leadership of a central authority while retaining certain powers of government.

National Urban Policy: Federal policies that “encourage the rational, orderly, efficient, economic growth, development, and redevelopment of our States, metropolitan areas, cities, counties, towns, and communities in predominantly rural areas which demonstrate a special potential for accelerated growth” (“Chapter 59,” 2007).

Policy Cycle: The four major stages of the policy making process including agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation.

Policy Issue Networks: Communities composed of specialists representing public and private sector interests.

Public Policy: The basic policy or set of policies that serve as the foundation for public laws.

Urban Fiscal Policy: A broad range of tax, budget, economic, and related public policy issues that affect the quality of life and the economic well-being of people in cities.

Urban Public Policy: A broad range of social, economic, and related public policy issues that affect the quality of life and the economic well-being of people in cities.

US Code: The consolidation of the general and permanent laws of the United States, coded by subject matter.

Bibliography

A new direction for national urban policy. (2006). Living Cities: The National Community Development Initiative. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://www.livingcities.org/2006%20Files/2006%5fpolicy%5furban%5fpolicy.html

About IEEE-USA. (2007). Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://www.ieeeusa.org/about/default.asp

Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1982). Urban policy making and subjective evaluations: Are they compatible?. Public Administration Review, 42, 127–135. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4597539

Buuma, H. (2001). Public policy marketing: Marketing exchange in the public sector. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1287–1302. Retrieved April 02, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6423959&site=bsi

Caputo, D. C. (1973). Evaluating urban public policy: A developmental model and some reservations. Public Administration Review, 33, 113. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4596852

Central Intelligence Agency. (2018, February 23). "United States." The World Factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Chapter 59-National urban policy and new community development. (2007). U.S. Code, Title 42. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from The Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc%5fsup%5f01%5f42%5f10%5f59.html

Clark, J. (2001). Six urban regime types: The effects of state laws and citizen participation on the development of alternative regimes. Public Administration Quarterly, 25, 3–48. Retrieved April 02, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6536101&site=ehost

Flanagan, R. (1997). The housing act of 1954: The sea change in national urban policy. Urban Affairs Review, 33, 265–287.

Jackson-Emoore, C. Influencing state policy: information, access, and timing. American Journal of Health Educators,37, 159–170.

Moore, S. (1997). Urban policy. Cato Handbook for Congress. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-26.html

Pinto, S., & Sablik, T. (2017). Responding to urban decline. Richmond Fed Economic Briefs, 17(7), 1–6. Retrieved March 8, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=124136158&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Public policy priority issues for 110th Congress, 1st Session. (2007). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/index.html

Penner, R. (1998). A brief history of state and local fiscal policy. Number A-27, New Federalism: Issues and Options for States. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from The Urban Institute http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=308018

Radin, B. (2000). Federalism, political structure, and public policy in the United States and Canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 2, 65–89.

Schuyler, M. (2006). Policy organizations: An insider's view. Harvard International Review, 28, 4–6. Retrieved April 02, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23508170&site=ehost

Scott, A. J. (2008). Inside the city: On urbanisation, public policy and planning. Urban Studies (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 45, 755–772. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=34462435

Skok, J. (1995). Policy issue networks and the public policy cycle: A structural-functional framework for public administration. Public Administration Review,55, 325–333. Retrieved April 02, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9507281722&site=ehost

Title 42, Chapter 59, Part A, section 4503. (2007). The Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc%5fsec%5f42%5f00004503----000-.html

Weiner, R. (2005). Lake effects: A history of urban policy making in Cleveland, 1825–1929. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Suggested Reading

Artle, R. (1971). Social problems and the urban crisis: Can public policy make a difference?: Discussion. American Economic Review, 61, 354–359. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=4507400

Baumont, C. (2009). Spatial effects of urban public policies on housing values. Papers In Regional Science, 88, 301–326. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=42649220

Berry, F. & Weschsler, B. (1995). State agencies' experience with strategic planning: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Quarterly,55, 159–169. Retrieved April 02, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9504110847&site=ehost

Bucholz, R. (2004). Stakeholder theory and public policy: How governments matter. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 143–164. Retrieved April 02, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=14145535&site=ehost

Cappellin, R. (2007). The territorial dimension of the knowledge economy: Collective learning, spatial changes, and regional and urban policies. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 897–921. Retrieved April 02, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24246653&site=ehost

Tach, L., & Emory, A. D. (2017). Public housing redevelopment, neighborhood change, and the restructuring of urban inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 123(3), 686–739. Retrieved March 8, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=126603654&site=ehost-live&scope=site