Both the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County are debating whether or not to adopt a city manager system of government (or county manager, obviously, in the county). Lucky for you, dear readers, the Institute just released my paper on local government structure that discusses the pros and cons of such systems in depth.
In a city or county manager system, the manager is employed by elected officials to run the day-to-day operations in a (hopefully) non-partisan and less politicized manner. Many municipalities use city managers or city administrators (a very similar system where the professional manager has slightly less power) in Missouri, including Kansas City and Springfield. Clay County is the only county that uses a county-manager system; it just instituted the system in 2021. The system works well, in my opinion, for small to mid-sized cities. I am less sold on this system for larger cities and, especially, counties.
Overall, the academic evidence suggests that adopting professional management would reduce corruption, improve financial reporting, lead to more broadly focused legislation (and fewer narrowly targeted measures), reduce political conflict, and increase innovative policy thinking (in ways both good and bad). These changes would be generally beneficial for the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, though the idea that politicians would now have more time for “innovative” thinking terrifies me. Usually, that “innovation” means harmful policies involving subsidies and mandates.
On the other hand, there is not enough evidence to state that professional management would significantly affect taxes and spending, government employee pay levels, or the quality of local services, despite what proponents of city manager systems claim.
The last claim regarding the quality of local services is key. Would the adoption of a city or county manager improve the quality of basic governmental services? (For example, would the snow get cleared off the roads faster under a city manager?) The presumption of better service quality with professional management is common, and it may be correct in some cases. But the evidence is not as clear as its supporters would suggest. Professional management might well perform better than management by elected officials. But as one academic stated, “For decades, analysts have presumed this performance gap exists, but they have yet to empirically demonstrate that any differences actually exist.”
Interestingly, the one proven downside of professional management is lower voter turnout for local elections. It seems that when you depoliticize local government (which is not a bad thing), people understandably depoliticize their own involvement with local government.
I remain unconvinced that professional management is the cure for the governmental problems in the City of St. Louis or St. Louis County. Adding another layer of bureaucracy is rarely the right solution.
