324 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
Local autonomy in matters of finance has been so disastrous that 
taxpayers are demanding protection from their own locally chosen 
officials. It is not that local officials are any less honest than State 
officials or any less devoted to the public interest. It is rather that 
they lack the knowledge and perspective to handle large sums of 
money safely and wisely, and that they are less resistant to political 
pressure or prominent local influence. 
State supervision or control seems to offer one of the best methods 
of obtaining improved accounting and reporting and better financial 
practices, and many States now provide for some centralized control 
in these fields. In other phases of administration, wherever technical 
skill is required, there is more and more dependence on State super- 
vision and control. Perhaps if the short ballot were adopted and the 
merit system introduced in rural government, as is the case in many 
city governments, a greater degree of autonomy would be justified. 
But so long as county, town, “and village governments depend on 
popular election to fill administrative posts, increasing overhead super- 
vision will be necessary. It is the price of that kind of democracy. 
The development and extent of this tendency toward State cen- 
tralization warrants some attention at this point. 
STATE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL 
PURPOSES AND METHODS 
The States have always assumed a certain responsibility for the 
conduct of local government. This is natural and proper, for the local 
units are created by the State and receive such powers as they enjoy 
from the State. 
A statement of the purposes of State supervision was made by a 
committee of the National Conference on the Science of Politics in 
1924 (118). Those which were generally approved were: 
(1) To collect and publish information and statistical data for reliable knowl- 
edge of local conditions as an aid to the locality and to the State. 
(2) To discover and prevent defaleation, fraud, and corruption, and to enforce 
generally established legal requirements. 
(3) To enforce minimum standards of record keeping and other financial pro-. 
cedure necessary for effective local government. 
(4) To promote efficiency in the methods of local government, that is, to enable 
municipalities to secure the same results at lower cost or better results at the same 
costs. 
(5) To control the policies of local governments with particular reference to the 
distribution of public expenditures and burdens. 
The committee felt that the objects of State supervision—that is, 
the fields which it should include—were taxation and revenues, budg- 
ets and expenditures, indebtedness, and accounting and audit. The 
compass of this part has been extended to include certain other fields 
where there has been increasing technical assistance as well as financial 
supervision. 
Until recent years the States have sought to regulate local adminis- 
tration mainly through constitutional and statutory restrictions inter- 
preted and enforced by the courts. However, as the functions of local 
government have expanded and have become more complex, these 
older methods of control have proved unsatisfactory. The mere 
enumeration of standards and limits, without means for effective 
enforcement, has failed to be an adequate safeguard. Only the most 
