The effect on the distribution of urban services of the “geographical fragmentation” of American metropolitan areas into many local government jurisdictions, each with important service responsibilities, is often overlooked. Comparison with Australia, where services are generally administered and financed at the State level, is instructive. Australian centralism tends to have an equalizing effect, largely due to bureaucratic patterns of service delivery, but has also produced both an insensitivity to specialized local factors and an “organizational fragmentation.” Developments in the 1970s suggest improvements in these areas of deficiency.
|Number of pages||7|
|Journal||Policy Studies Journal|
|Publication status||Published - Jun 1981|