The council-manager (C-M) form of government has steadily become more common in municipal governments since the first local government manager was appointed in Staunton, Virginia, in 1908.¹ The C-M structure, used in both city and county governments, emerged in response to the growing complexity of cities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as population growth, industrialization, and transportation, among other factors, made the governing of cities increasingly challenging. Additionally, concerns about corruption and “machine politics” made the notion of an impartial administrator responsible for the execution and implementation of policy more attractive.

The proliferation of this municipal structure speaks to its success, as cities are often reluctant to embrace such structural change until it has been proven to work elsewhere. The same can be said of policy issues, as demonstrated by municipal leaders who seek to replicate initiatives that have been effective in other jurisdictions, rather than trying to develop them first—and there’s nothing wrong with that. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as the saying goes. While no form of government may be perfect, the benefits of the C-M system are noteworthy.

Advocates of C-M governments typically point to the expertise that city and county managers can offer, the accountability of managers to the governing body, and the nonpartisan nature of the manager position allowing for more objectivity and less partisanship. There is certainly plenty of evidence to support these arguments. A 2002 study published in the State and Local Government Review found that C-M governments are less susceptible to corruption than mayor-council governments.² 

Likewise, a 2015 study published in the American Review of Public Administration concluded that C-M governments are more innovative, have higher population, greater economic growth, lower unemployment, and higher population density.³ These are great, evidence-based arguments for the C-M form of government, to be sure. However, I would like to suggest some additional ways of thinking about municipal government structure, which may provide a stronger philosophical foundation for C-M governments.

The Matter and Form of Political Institutions

One of Aristotle’s most profound and influential ideas is hylomorphism, a term derived from the Greek words “hyle” and “morphe,” which translate to “matter” and “form.” Aristotle contends that all objects contain composite elements of matter and form from which they derive their basic characteristics. A house, for instance, is distinctly a house because of its matter (wood, brick, stone, etc.) and form (the design of the house making it suitable for habitation). 

An object that only shared one of these elements, such as a brick wall (same matter, different form) or an ornament of a house (same form, different matter), would not be a house because it does not have the composite elements of one. While Aristotle primarily applies his metaphysics of hylomorphism to physical objects, he also extends it to humans, with the physical body being the matter and the soul being the form. Naturally, the concept is also applicable to the institutions created by humans, including our governments.

Much of Aristotle’s seminal work, Politics, is devoted to examining various typologies of government, which he describes as “regimes.” Aristotle evaluates the relative strengths and weaknesses of regimes ruled by the one (monarchy and tyranny), the few (aristocracy and oligarchy), and the many (polity and democracy). He applies hylomorphism to understanding how each regime is structured based on how it is organized (the form) and who is responsible for political decision-making (the matter). 

A monarchy is organized around the central authority of a singular figure, who is responsible for determining which policies ought to be implemented and how. A democracy, in most cases, is characterized by distinct branches of government with limited or defined powers, with representatives elected by the people to channel their interests and priorities into political action. Although municipal governments may look different today than they did in Aristotle’s time, we can apply his hylomorphism to better understand their structure and operation, as well as the implications for C-M governments.

The form of C-M governments features an elected legislative body, such as a city council or board of county supervisors, which has the power to approve or deny policy ordinances, development proposals, contracts with utility providers, grants for private or nonprofit organizations, and so forth. It also has an appointed executive, such as a city or county manager, who is responsible for enforcing or implementing the decisions made by the legislative body. In some cases, the executive may also provide insight or guidance to inform the decisions made by the legislative body.

In mayor-council governments, by contrast, there is no separate executive leader responsible for the implementation of legislative decisions. Instead, an elected mayor holds executive powers and acts as the leader of the council, often being just as involved in legislative decision-making as the other members of the legislative body, if not more. This difference in municipal form may seem somewhat inconsequential, but the municipal matter is where the divergence becomes more pronounced.

In both forms, there are also numerous departments and divisions that operate—directly or indirectly—either under the direction of the city or county manager, or under the council and mayor. The key distinction lies in who has the executive authority to implement the decisions of the council: the mayor or the manager. As an elected official, the mayor is subject to the same political pressures and incentives as the other councilmembers, for better or worse. Some believe that having direct accountability to voters is the best mechanism for preventing corruption and ensuring that policies reflect the interests of the community, and the absence of an executive manager ensures that legislative and executive actions are subject to the feedback loop of elections.

As we have seen, the evidence suggests that C-M governments are less prone to corruption than mayor-council governments. This may be, in part, because city managers are somewhat removed from the political partisanship that dominates elections, allowing them to focus on more objective questions of how best to implement the policies and initiatives that have already been decided. As the saying goes, “there is no Republican or Democratic way to fill a pothole.” Additionally, since city managers are not forced to constantly look ahead to the next election, they are able to develop a long-term vision for the community in ways that elected officials often can’t.

Lastly, executive managers are accountable—to the councils that appoint them, to the municipal staff that work under their direction, and to the communities they serve each day. If accountability is only extended to government officials who happen to be elected, then our conception of accountability is far too narrow. Nevertheless, these are serious strengths of C-M governments which are a result of their unique composition—their matter and form.

Deliberation and Execution

Another area in which Aristotle’s ideas can provide valuable direction for municipal practices is rooted in his classic distinction between deliberation and execution. Aristotle contends that groups or committees are better suited for the task of deliberation due to their collective wisdom and knowledge, which will exceed that of an individual.

“For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse,” he argues in Politics. “For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and senses; that is a figure of their mind and disposition.”⁴ It’s precisely this sentiment that is at the heart of Aristotle’s notion of the “wisdom of the crowd.”

For our purposes, public engagement and democratic deliberation, mediated through the elected officials on a council, is the mechanism of transmuting public preferences into public policy. This point also illuminates the importance of having elected officials who take the responsibility of public service seriously, exercising the virtues necessary to honorably represent their community. It’s no surprise that Aristotle emphasizes this in his discussion of “practical wisdom,” or “phronesis,” which is concerned with applying experience and virtue to particular circumstances. 

In Nicomachean Ethics, he describes the “mark of a man of practical wisdom to be able to deliberate well about what is good and expedient,” adding that it is a “reasoned and true state of capacity to act with regard to human goods.”⁵ Practical wisdom is essential for elected officials so that they may deliberate well with one another and community members alike, making decisions that are oriented toward the common good of the community. Perhaps this is aspirational, but it does help elucidate the nature of deliberation within a political community, which requires the collaboration of residents and elected officials.

While Aristotle views groups as preferable to individuals for the purpose of deliberation, he suggests that the opposite may be true of execution. This distinction is effectively a division of labor, allowing groups (councils) to deliberate and individuals (managers) to execute. The capacity to exchange ideas and experiences, consider costs and benefits, and arrive at a collaborative decision informed by collective knowledge is the feature of deliberation, but this quality can become debilitating when misapplied to execution. 

When a council, committee, or assembly attempts to implement a given policy as a collective, the execution is often derailed by disagreement, indecisiveness, and conflicting strategies. The advantages of collective decision-making may become maladaptive in the implementation phase as members relitigate decisions already made and express incompatible views on how they should be executed. There are “too many cooks in the kitchen,” so to speak. In short, the concern is that the strength of numbers in deliberation will deteriorate into impotence and disorder during execution.

In response to these concerns, Aristotle advocates for “magistrates” that are responsible for implementing the decisions made by the deliberative council.⁶ He examines several ways in which the chief magistrates can be chosen or appointed, and what powers and responsibilities they will have. Naturally, these details are dependent on the history and characteristics of the particular community and the government (regime) that it has produced.

For C-M governments, the city or county manager serves as the magistrate responsible for the proper execution of the policies and decisions approved by the council. The manager determines the best approach for implementing these decisions, often with input from elected officials, municipal staff, and the community. In the real world, of course, policies are not executed unilaterally by city managers as municipal governments are staffed with numerous departments that carry out daily operations. Nonetheless, the implementation of policies deliberated by the community through their elected officials is still the principal duty of the city/county manager, who is ultimately responsible for the management of the municipality.

Why It Matters for Local Government

Although Aristotle was not contemplating the modern C-M form of government, his incisive arguments should inform how our municipal governments function. The matter and form of municipal governments fundamentally shape how they interact with the communities they serve. Their methods of deliberation and execution determine who will be heard and represented, as well as how policies are discussed, decided, and implemented. Unfortunately, some municipalities have not thoroughly considered these questions and how they impact policy issues ranging from housing and economic development to transportation and public safety.

C-M governments have the structural advantages discussed, and the evidence supports their success relative to other forms of municipal government. And yet, they can still find themselves stifled by self-imposed obstacles that prevent the successful execution of policies desired by the community and approved by the council. As is often and correctly said, public policy is 1% inspiration and 99% implementation. Thus, a useful starting point may be to identify and address the barriers—internal and external; structural and procedural—that are limiting the potential of our cities.

So, what can Aristotle teach us about municipal governments? An awful lot, as it turns out.

MICHAEL HULING is a senior county planner in Clark County, Nevada, USA, and an advisory council member at the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership.

Endnotes and Resources

¹ https://icma.org/page/icma-history

² DeSantis, V. S., & Renner, T. (2002). City government structures: An attempt at clarification. State and Local Government Review, 34(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X0203400202

³ “Form of Government Still Matters: Fostering Innovation in U.S. Municipal Governments.” American Review of Public Administration, 42 (3): 257-281. K.L. Nelson, K. L. and J. H. Svara, 2012.

⁴ Aristotle. (2001). The Basic Works of Aristotle (R. McKeon, Ed.). The Modern Library.

⁵ Aristotle.

⁶ Aristotle.