Local Improvement Districts as Political Participation Signals
| Author | Dan Ziebarth |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929920965789 |
| Published date | 01 February 2022 |
| Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920965789
Political Studies Review
2022, Vol. 20(1) 101 –117
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929920965789
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Local Improvement Districts as
Political Participation Signals
Dan Ziebarth
Abstract
A significant amount of literature has inspected the relationship between public–private partnerships
and state and local government. This literature has focused primarily on how these agreements
shape financing, economic development, and public policy measures. There is little research,
however, on how improvement districts may affect political participation. There are many reasons
to believe that these districts may raise levels of political participation, as they deeply affect state
and local politics and shape the socioeconomic development of local communities. This article
fills this gap in the literature by exploring the relationship between the establishment of local
improvement districts and voter participation rates. An original data set is constructed from 18
state assembly districts and 22 local improvement districts in New York City across nine elections
between 2002 and 2018, resulting in 198 unique observations across time. Empirical results reflect
how the development of improvement districts can serve as signals for rising political participation
in surrounding areas, marked by increasing rates of voter turnout across midterm and presidential-
year election cycles. These findings are compelling, providing insight into how local organizations
designed and sustained through issue ownership and community collaboration have the ability to
raise political participation through electoral activity.
Keywords
improvement districts, public–private partnerships, political participation, civic engagement, local
politics
Accepted: 22 September 2020
Establishing consistency in high levels of civic engagement and democratic engagement
has not only been shown to be integral to political life, but it is a normatively appealing
benchmark as well. Democratic citizenship is predicated on the belief that creating the
space for a socially and politically active populace strengthens well-being and representa-
tion for communities. Previous research has shown the issues posed to local government
when a weaker civic culture exists, as measured by political participation, associational
life, and interpersonal trust (Andrews, 2007).
Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
Corresponding author:
Dan Ziebarth, Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0086,
USA.
Email: dziebarth@gwmail.gwu.edu
965789PSW0010.1177/1478929920965789Political Studies ReviewZiebarth
research-article2020
Article
102 Political Studies Review 20(1)
Civic engagement encompasses the ways in which individuals connect with others to
create regular social interactions motivated by shared membership in a given group or
organization (Manturuk et al., 2012). Research in civic engagement has historically
assessed the basis for which social groups form to interact with matters of public life, and
how developments of social and political change affect democratic government. It has
been argued that there are potentially negative consequences presented by higher levels
of civic engagement (Fiorina, 1999); however, the sociopolitical aspects of robust stand-
ards of democratic citizenship and social involvement are widely determined to improve
government responsiveness and political representation.
Equally integral to the maintenance of stable, functioning communities is the adminis-
tration of government services. An increasingly prevalent method through which local
governments are administering community services are through public–private partner-
ships (PPPs). PPPs are organizational systems in which public actors and private actors
work together to achieve a common goal, or set of goals, through shared resources
(Koppenjan, 2005). The ultimate aim of these partnerships is to provide beneficial public
services by sharing risk with private actors and reducing overall costs (Bloomfield, 2006).
The term PPP is a broad term, however, and encompasses a wide, diverse array of partner-
ships with unique focuses (Wettenhall, 2003).
One of the most prominent forms of PPPs are “improvement districts,” which are com-
monly referred to as community improvement districts (CIDs) or business improvement
districts (BIDs). Improvement districts are community organizations developed with the
authorization of state and local government authorities to oversee the maintenance and
improvement of social, physical, and economic standards in the area. Since 1970, the
number of these districts has risen to approximately 800 in the United States (Morçöl
et al., 2017), with similar improvement district systems found in cities in other countries
including Canada, Germany, England, Sweden, Australia, and South Africa (Peyroux
et al., 2012). These organizations engage in a range of activities from organizing com-
munity events, social gatherings, and service delivery to local neighborhoods.
Research surrounding improvement districts, and PPPs broadly, has focused on the
effectiveness and equitability of service delivery provided by these partnerships. No
research to this point, however, has explicitly sought to assess the relationship between
improvement districts and civic engagement in communities in which these districts are
established. As a result, scholars and practitioners are aware of laws, policies, and institu-
tional mechanisms that affect and respond to improvement districts, yet have little to no
insight into how these districts affect and respond to community residents. This article
seeks to help fill this significant gap in scholarly and practical knowledge.
There are multiple reasons why we would theoretically expect that the establishment
of a local improvement district could raise levels of democratic participation and civic
engagement among citizens. First, the creation and maintenance of these districts requires
collaboration between state and local government and community groups and residents.
These collaborative activities provide more opportunities for residents to see their effect
on public affairs. Second, these improvement districts allow government officials to
become engaged and involved with community residents and other organizations to a
greater extent. This connection may raise resident awareness of elected officials and com-
munity interests. Finally, these districts increase funds targeted at improving physical,
social, and economic standards for community residents and property owners, which
would be expected to raise the likelihood that residents would participate in civic life and
elections.
To continue reading
Request your trial