American Society for Public Administration

fects allocation of expenditure responsi bilities between state and local governments. Fiscal condition refers to the capacity of governments to meet financial and service level obligations (Hendrick et al. 2006, 1). A decline in such capacity equates to fiscal stress. Studies that have looked at fiscal relationship between state and local govern ments often focus on how fiscal institutions such as tax and expenditure limits (TELs) have changed structure and size of state-local sector (see, for instance, Mullins and Joyce 1996). A few studies have provided a descriptive account of how recent state fis cal stress has affected fiscal relationship between states and their local governments. A single case study by Conant (2003) found that fiscal stress led to a reduction in state aid to local governments. Kalambokidis and Reschovsky (2005) observed that budget shortfalls from 2001 to 2004 forced states

The American county?long consid ered to be the bedrock of local gov ernment in the United States?has grown in importance since the middle of the 20th century. Between 1962 and 2002, the county government share of county and municipal revenues grew from 39.3 to 47.3 percent, and expenditures grew from 33.7 to 46.5 percent. As a consequence of this substantial growth in county financial activity, there has been a con comitant and stunning increase in the types and level of county government services. Re latedly, the county workforce has increased dramatically, more than tripling in size from around 700,000 full-time equivalent employ ees in 1962 to 2.3 million in 2002. In 2002, county employees accounted for 48.6 per cent of the county and municipal workforce compared with 35.7 percent in 1962. Today, counties employ almost as many people as do municipalities. Coincident with this growth, American counties face a number of challenges as ser vice-delivery agents and instruments of gov ernance in the early 21st century. Viewed from a global perspective, perhaps the most daunting challenge is whether or not coun ties can meet the myriad and far-flung expec tations that accompany the service roles coun ties are expected to play. A growing number of county governments must simultaneously function as traditional, local, and regional governments (see Benton 2002a). As tradi tional governments, counties serve as ad ministrative or political arms of their state governments and thus perform a number of state functions (many of them mandated) and services to all county residents.1 When counties function as local governments, they provide municipal-type services to residents of unincorporated areas.2 In addition, densely populated counties often serve as regional governments when they provide urban-type services to residents of both unincorporated and incorporated areas.3 This enlargement of the service role and prominence of counties and the wholly new approach to daily operations that is required means that county governments must deal with several governance issues. Indeed, these issues are part and parcel of the very essence of counties as they strive to provide tradi tional as well as municipaland urban-type services and meet the heightened expecta tions of democratic governance. As function ing full-service governments, three questions in particular are salient. First, what is the most suitable form of county government in terms of responsiveness to escalating service expectations and ability to negotiate with

This article argues that, in our rapidly changing, increasingly complex worId, govemment matters. It always has and arguably now matters more than ever largely because of the context within which we live — a context in which more than two decades of govemment bashing have taken their toll on pride and capacity in public service, leaving an emusculaled public actor to deal with the immense challenges of today's world. To make this argument the historical shifts of perspecitve on government and the marketplace are describe along with the changes occurring so rapidly in our world. Second, the impact of the recent shift to a pro-marketplace bias and the impacts of globalization. interdependence and increased tribulism on governments and on public administration are described. Finally, some key challenges facing public administration as a result of these changes are discussed.

In today's economic and political climate, there is a growing trend toward less governmental intervention in the economy and more reliance on the private sector for the delivery of a variety of services. Deficit politics, airline deregulation, and the prospect of a windfall of cash has prompted many local units of government that own and operate airports to consider selling or leasing these facilities to private investors. Airport privatization has emerged as a contentious issue, with weighty arguments on both sides of the debate. This article examines these arguments and presents several models of airport privatization. The authors suggest that the most aggressive form of privatization–full divestiture–is unlikely to produce the benefits advertised by its proponents. However, less radical forms of privatization serve as useful models for future airport ownership and operation. The authors conclude that, given the great variation in the types of airports in the United States system, no single model is sufficient.

Local leaders urged to take responsibility for finding metropolitan problem solutions.