Powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for States and the people, which are divided between State and local governments.
Most Americans have more frequent contact with their State and local governments than with the Federal Government. Police departments, libraries, and schools—not to mention driver’s licenses and parking tickets—usually fall under the oversight of State and local governments. Each state has its own written constitution, and these documents are often far more elaborate than their Federal counterpart. The Alabama Constitution, for example, contains 310,296 words—more than 40 times as many as the U.S. Constitution.
All State governments are modeled after the Federal Government and consist of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The U.S. Constitution mandates that all States uphold a “republican form” of government, although the three-branch structure is not required.
Executive Branch
In every state, the Executive Branch is headed by a governor who is directly elected by the people. In most states, other leaders in the executive branch are also directly elected, including the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and auditors and commissioners. States reserve the right to organize in any way, so they often vary greatly with regard to executive structure.
Legislative Branch
All 50 States have legislatures made up of elected representatives, who consider matters brought forth by the governor or introduced by its members to create legislation that becomes law. The legislature also approves a State’s budget and initiates tax legislation and articles of impeachment. The latter is part of a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government that mirrors the Federal system and prevents any branch from abusing its power.
Except for one State, Nebraska, all States have a bicameral legislature made up of two chambers: a smaller upper house and a larger lower house. Together the two chambers make State laws and fulfill other governing responsibilities. (Nebraska is the lone state that has just one chamber in its legislature.) The smaller upper chamber is always called the Senate, and its members generally serve longer terms, usually four years. The larger lower chamber is most often called the House of Representatives, but some states call it the Assembly or the House of Delegates. Its members usually serve shorter terms, often two years.
Judicial Branch
State judicial branches are usually led by the State supreme court, which hears appeals from lower-level State courts. Court structures and judicial appointments/elections are determined either by legislation or the State constitution. The supreme court focuses on correcting errors made in lower courts and therefore holds no trials. Rulings made in State supreme courts are normally binding; however, when questions are raised regarding consistency with the U.S. Constitution, matters may be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.
Local governments generally include two tiers: counties, also known as boroughs in Alaska and parishes in Louisiana, and municipalities, or cities/towns. In some States, counties are divided into townships. Municipalities can be structured in many ways, as defined by State constitutions, and are called, variously, townships, villages, boroughs, cities, or towns. Various kinds of districts also provide functions in local government outside county or municipal boundaries, such as school districts or fire protection districts.
Municipal governments—those defined as cities, towns, boroughs (except in Alaska), villages, and townships—are generally organized around a population center and in most cases correspond to the geographical designations used by the United States Census Bureau for reporting of housing and population statistics. Municipalities vary greatly in size, from the millions of residents of New York City and Los Angeles to the few hundred people who live in Jenkins, Minnesota.
Municipalities generally take responsibility for parks and recreation services, police and fire departments, housing services, emergency medical services, municipal courts, transportation services (including public transportation), and public works (streets, sewers, snow removal, signage, and so forth).
Whereas the Federal Government and State governments share power in countless ways, a local government must be granted power by the State. In general, mayors, city councils, and other governing bodies are directly elected by the people.
bizoo_n
April 19, 2022
Fidel Castro. Muammar Gaddafi. Kim Il Sung. All of these dictators remained in power for many years, but that should come as no surprise, according to research by Georgy Egorov. Using a dynamic political economy model, he found that bad governments can last just as long as good
ones.
“If you look empirically at what’s in the world, it’s not necessarily true that democratic countries have better governments,” at least when you look at the country’s economic performance, for example, says Egorov, now a professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at the Kellogg School of Management.
Is Democracy the Best Form of Government?
“A common notion is that a democracy should be superior to dictatorships because they are able to select the best people,” Egorov says. However, there are both successful dictatorships and unsuccessful democracies.
Where bad governments come from and whether democracies have an advantage over dictatorships are two questions that historians have grappled with throughout recent history. To answer these questions, Egorov, Daron Acemoglu, a professor at MIT, and Konstantin Sonin, now at the University of Chicago, used a mathematical model to describe these different forms of government.
Democracies differ from dictatorships, they suggest, by the amount of influence that the current government has on forming the next government. The current leaders in a perfect democracy would have zero influence, whereas an absolute dictatorship would place total control over the decision in one person’s hands. Between these extremes lie imperfect democracies and less strict dictatorships.
Having a Democracy Doesn’t Necessarily Mean You Have the Best Leaders.
What the researchers found was probably not what most people would expect. “It’s not necessarily true that more democratic governments are better at bringing in the best people,” Egorov says.
According to their model, when the conditions in the country do not change over time, dictatorships can last just as long as democracies can. This makes sense if you consider how current government officials choose new people to join them in leadership positions.
“In principle, if you’re in the government, there’s no reason for you not to select the most competent fellow members of the government,” Egorov says. But in a dictatorship, what happens if the people you select to help you run the country are better at the job than you are? The country would be run well, but your tenure may not last long. The new officials would have an incentive to oust you because you are now the least competent leader. There would be a good chance you would not remain in office as a result, Egorov says.
“So if you value being in office or being part of the government, then probably you wouldn’t want to select the best people into the government after all. In fact, you have an incentive to select worse people so you’ll be the smartest of them.” That, he says, is how bad governments can persist.
This logic does not apply to a perfect democracy. But when comparing real-world imperfect democracies and dictatorships, there is no predicting which will select more competent individuals.
Important Benefit for Democracies
The researchers did find a selection-related benefit to democratic governments, however. “As it turns out, democracies have a real edge in a changing environment,” Egorov says. This is because these governments are more flexible.
By contrast, if a shock like a war or economic crisis hits a country run by a dictator, even a government initially composed of competent officials may not be flexible enough to respond well.
To see how this might play out, imagine a country of six people, three of whom are brilliant generals and three of whom are economic geniuses. The country goes to war, and the generals form the government. In this scenario, the government is effective whether it was formed as a democracy or a dictatorship because the best people to lead during war are already in place.
When the war ends and the country slides into an economic recession, however, the differences between the two types of government start to become apparent. In a democracy, the country could adapt because the economic geniuses could be elected to office. But if the country is a dictatorship, the generals would still be in power and would be ineffective in the face of the new crisis. In a perfect world, the generals would appoint an economic genius to help out with the government. But in practice, the generals would fear the genius might replace them with fellow economists, Egorov says. Even though they may not be able to manage the crisis efficiently, they would refuse to cede power to another group.
“Here is where we get an unambiguous prediction that the more democratic a country is, the more able it is to fire people that are no longer competent and bring in people that are needed at the moment,” Egorov says. Therefore, the more flexible the government is, the better the outcome.
When a country is stable, its type of government does not have as large an impact on its success. But in a tumultuous world, democracies are more flexible and thus more successful, Egorov says.
The key is elections. During crises, people who are better suited to solve the problem are more likely to be ushered into office. “Whereas in dictatorships, if you started with a person who is very capable and the environment changes, you are pretty likely to still be stuck with [that person] even though they are no longer the one you would want to have in the government.”
For example, he says, if big crises were to hit both the United States and China, the United States would recover more quickly because its government could adapt. In China, that is less likely.
Who Is in Power Matters More than What System of Government You Have
Egorov admits that the quality of government does not only depend on the people in power; it also depends on the incentives they are given for performing well. At the end of the day, however, he and his co-authors decided to focus on the selection of the people in government, not accountability. “Yes, democracies should perform better because politicians are accountable. In a dictatorship, politicians are not accountable to anyone, so they should perform worse. And yet this is not exactly what we see in the world. Accountability alone cannot explain poorly performing democracies and, especially, fast-growing dictatorships. In this paper, we show that selection can.”
But the more important takeaway is that when crises are possible, democracies perform the best in the long run, which is what you might expect from looking at nineteenth and twentieth century history, Egorov says.
“Flexibility is really where democracies excel. This is not obvious and not what we expected when we started.”
Featured Faculty
James Farley/Booz, Allen & Hamilton Research Professor; Professor of Managerial Economics & Decision Sciences
About the Writer
Leigh Krietsch Boerner is a science and health writer based in Bloomington, Indiana.
About the Research
Acemoglu, Daron, Georgy Egorov, and Konstantin Sonin. 2010. “Political Selection and Persistence of Bad Governments.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 125(4): 1511-1575.
Read the original
Most Popular This Week
-
To Get Employees Back to the Office, Address These 4 Frictions
An innovation expert explains how to meet resistance head-on.
-
5 Tips to Become a More Effective Manager
Leaders matter. But so do managers.
-
Which Form of Government Is Best?
Democracies may not outlast dictatorships, but they adapt better.
-
What the New Climate Bill Means for the U.S.—and the World
The Inflation Reduction Act won’t reverse inflation or halt climate change, but it's still a big deal.
-
When Do People Protest and When Do They Just Grumble? History Offers Clues.
A tradition of anti-government uprisings can impact communities centuries later.
-
Gender-Balanced Teams Do Better Work
When it comes to teams of scientists, “men and women are both part of the recipe for success,” according to new research.
-
What Went Wrong at AIG?
Unpacking the insurance giant's collapse during the 2008 financial crisis.
-
How Are Black–White Biracial People Perceived in Terms of Race?
Understanding the answer—and why black and white Americans may percieve biracial people differently—is increasingly important in a multiracial society.
-
What’s the Secret to Successful Innovation?
Hint: it’s not the product itself.
-
Why Well-Meaning NGOs Sometimes Do More Harm than Good
Studies of aid groups in Ghana and Uganda show why it’s so important to coordinate with local governments and institutions.
-
How Much Do Campaign Ads Matter?
Tone is key, according to new research, which found that a change in TV ad strategy could have altered the results of the 2000 presidential election.
-
Immigrants to the U.S. Create More Jobs than They Take
A new study finds that immigrants are far more likely to found companies—both large and small—than native-born Americans.
-
Take 5: Learn to Love Networking (or at Least Tolerate It)
A look at the social and psychological factors that can make networking uncomfortable and how to overcome them.
-
How Has Marketing Changed over the Past Half-Century?
Phil Kotler’s groundbreaking textbook came out 55 years ago. Sixteen editions later, he and coauthor Alexander Chernev discuss how big data, social media, and purpose-driven branding are moving the field forward.
-
Why Do Some People Succeed after Failing, While Others Continue to Flounder?
A new study dispels some of the mystery behind success after failure.
-
Who Should Win the Tug-of-War over User Data?
It’s not always clear whether businesses or consumers should have more control. Research offers a new way of thinking through the problem.
More in Policy