The Government of the United States, Natinoal, State and Local. By William Bennett Munro, Professor of Municipal Government in Harvard University. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1919. 648 p. $2.75

1919 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 324-324
Author(s):  
C. C. Williamson
2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Elcock

Regionalism: the development of governments and governance structures intermediate between state and local levels has become increasingly significant in the government of both Britain and the United States. Functional issues concerned with the regeneration of rustbelt areas or controlling growth in prosperous areas have resulted in searches for regionalist solutions on both sides of the Atlantic. However, in Britain there are additional pressures from regions with distinctive cultures, as well as from the increasingly influential ‘Europe of the Regions’. Demands for regional government and governance may be generated from the bottom up by a region's politicians, business leaders and others but they are unlikely to be successful unless they are encouraged by higher levels of government, at state, national or supranational levels.


2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-65
Author(s):  
Ilya Slavinski ◽  
Kimberly Spencer-Suarez

Over the last several decades, with the rise of mass incarceration in the United States and its steep costs, governments at the federal, state, and local levels have dramatically ramped up monetary punishment. Monetary sanctions are now the most common type of criminal penalty in the United States. The growth of fines, fees, and other legal financial obligations (LFOs), and the ensuing legal debt, reflect a shifting of the system’s costs onto its primarily low-income and indigent subjects. This study provides an exploration of previously underexamined ways in which monetary sanctions impose distinct burdens on the poor. Interviews with 121 defendants in Texas and New York, along with courtroom observations, demonstrate that criminal legal debt is particularly challenging for people with low incomes in three meaningful ways. First, systems set up to handle indigency claims do not adequately address the needs or complex individual circumstances of those who simply do not have the ability to pay. Oftentimes, alternatives are unavailable or statutorily prohibited. Second, the lack of alternatives to payment lead to compromising situations, which then compel indigent defendants to make difficult choices about how to allocate scant resources. Finally, being encumbered with fines and fees and participating in alternatives like community service comes with taxing time requirements that can prove uniquely challenging for those who are poor. These three findings lead us to propose a series of policy recommendations revolving around three key themes: (a) enhancement of indigency procedures, (b) equity in monetary sanctions, and (c) alleviating burdens by improving accessibility.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document