ABSTRACT
Small town government is characterized as being a publicly funded organization, which is operationally defined as an administrative structure that (1) is highly dependent upon budgetary cycles; (2) tends to have vague, if not conflicting and/or multiple, program missions; and (3) is by nature an institution that is expected to assist in the provision of public goods and services for its residents. Because small towns are spatially fixed jurisdictions with limited tax bases, the budgetary policy options are often limited in both the scope and range of available public services. Small towns will rarely exhibit the political will to accept innovative social risk taking of municipal service distribution and delivery. Often classified as nonpartisan and with an informal policymaking leadership, these communities tend to exhibit a Traditional-Individualistic political culture. With limited revenue streams, there are fewer budgetary goodies or rewards, giving local officials fewer bargaining chips and, therefore, constraining their policy planning strategies. This is especially true during times of fiscal stress, when the politics of retrenchment take hold (Rubin, 1983, 1998; Weinberg, 1984; Blitz and Pellegge, 1987; Mattson, 1991, 1994, 2014; Wolensky and Enright, 1991).
