Local Fiscal Behavior Under Subnational Provisions

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yilin Hou

Abstract This study examines fiscal policy interactions between state and local governments. Research in this area has been increasing but remains inadequate, especially on local policy options during economic downturns. State governments oversee local finances, also provide financial assistance; localities are expected to adopt counter-cyclical fiscal policies (CCFP). There has been an increasing literature on CCFP at the state level, but little on the local level. This paper uses U.S. county data for empirical analysis and attempts to move closer to consensus on the determinants of local savings and their effects on outlays. I find no evidence that localities smooth across boom-bust cycles; i.e., they do not save for revenue shortfalls. I find that state fiscal institutions cast real impact on local finance. These shed light on local policy making, also add to existing evidence for subnational policy design.

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-373
Author(s):  
David Popp

AbstractInnovation is an important part of energy policy, and encouraging clean energy innovation is often an explicit goal of policy makers. For local governments, promoting clean energy innovation is seen not only as a pathway to a cleaner economy but also as a tool for promoting the local economy. But is such optimism warranted? There is a substantial literature examining the relationships between innovation and environmental policy, but few studies focus explicitly on innovation at the state and local level. In this paper, I provide key lessons from research on clean energy innovation, focusing on lessons relevant for state and local governments. I then summarize the results of a recent working paper by Fu et al. (2018) that studied wind energy innovation across individual states in the United States. While state-level policies can promote clean energy innovation, it is overall market size that matters most. Thus, innovation need not occur in those states most actively promoting clean energy. I conclude with lessons for state and local governments drawn from both this work and the broader literature on energy innovation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 275-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Blair ◽  
Anthony M. Starke

State and local governments traditionally exerted leadership in policy areas that directly affected their communities and citizens. The leadership of cities, however, has expanded into a number of policy areas where the states and the national government have reduced their policy footprint. This article summarizes research on local policy leadership, examines it within the context of historical state–local intergovernmental relations, and reviews three expanding policy areas. As creatures of state government, localities are subject to legislative restrictions; however, recent research reveals a significant upsurge of state governments preempting policy actions of local governments. Therefore, it can be concluded that the flame of local government policy leadership burns brightly now, but forces appear to be gathering that may cause it to flicker.


2021 ◽  
pp. 089124242110228
Author(s):  
Ben Armstrong

State and local governments frequently invest in policies aimed at stimulating the growth of new industries, but studies of industrial policy and related economic development initiatives cast doubt on their effectiveness. This article examines the role of state-level industrial policies in contributing to the different economic trajectories of two U.S. metro areas—Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Cleveland, Ohio—as they adapted to the decline of their legacy industries. Comparative case studies show that industrial policies in Pittsburgh, which empowered research universities as local economic leaders, contributed to the transformation of the local economy. In Cleveland, by contrast, state industrial policies invested in making incremental improvements, particularly in legacy sectors. The article concludes that by empowering new local economic actors—such as universities—industrial policies can foment political change that enables structural economic change to follow.


2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory B. Lewis ◽  
Rahul Pathak ◽  
Chester S. Galloway

Have state and local governments (SLGs) achieved pay parity with the private sector? The answer depends on how one defines parity. Using a standard labor economics model on U.S. Census data from 1990 to 2014, we find different patterns if we focus on pay, on pay plus benefits, or on total compensation within an occupation. All approaches indicate that pay is higher in local than in state governments and that Blacks, Hispanics, and employees without college diplomas earn higher pay in SLGs than in the private sector. In contrast, Whites, Asians, and college graduates are less likely to enjoy higher pay working in SLGs than in the private sector. Unsurprisingly, states with more liberal and Democratic legislatures pay public employees better, relative to workers in the private sector.


Author(s):  
J. R. Deshazo ◽  
Juan Matute

This article discusses the importance of measuring the greenhouse gas (GHG) effects of urban and regional planning and policy in order to develop and implement policies to reduce GHG emissions. It argues that existing local government GHG measurement methods fail to support the local governments in their evaluation of policy design and the GHG reductions resulting from their policies. The article highlights the need for a large amount of observational data, from different locations and different times, as well as for control variables in order to disentangle local policy effects from nonpolicy and extra-local effects.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (-) ◽  
pp. 27-30
Author(s):  
Vitalii ZIANKO ◽  
Tetiana NECHYPORENKO

The paper is devoted to the implementation of regional budget policy in Ukraine. The main vectors of budget policy development as a component of socio-economic policy at the local level are highlighted. Within the framework of the declared budget policy, the peculiarities of the formation and functioning of local (regional) budgets are considered. The interpretation of the definitions of "budget" and "policy" is presented, and the author's definition of the essence of the budget policy of the region is offered. The conceptual dominants of budget policy, the implementation of which takes place through the budget mechanism, are studied. It is proved that budget policy is an important lever of influence and a real reflection of the tactics and strategy of public authorities and local governments in the budget sphere. It is substantiated that the effectiveness of the implementation of regional budget policy directly depends on the sequence of steps aimed at increasing the level of competitiveness of the regions and overcoming the existing regional disparities. On the basis of generalization of thematic researches and practice the offers concerning application of levers of budgetary regulation which define a level of efficiency of budgetary policy of region are formulated. It is stated that the content of the budget policy of the region should be to determine the course, tasks and activities of the state and local governments in the field of formation and use of budget funds. Full implementation of the budget policy of the region stimulates the functioning of economic activity of administrative-territorial units, promotes rational budget planning, as well as the effective filling, distribution and use of local financial resources.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 300-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geiguen Shin

Abstract Contemporary U.S. federalism particularly since the late1960s has evolved over the course of pluralism alternating exercisable governmental powers between the federal and state governments. The complexity of the power relationship has been observed in a variety of policies during the past quarter-century as has the discussion of whether or not contemporary U.S. federalism has developed in a way that increase effective public policy performance. Focusing mainly on the period of the past 50 years of U.S. federalism history, this article suggests that federalism dynamics have not exercised either constant liberal or conservative influence on public policy performance. Instead, this article suggests that the clear functional responsibility between the federal government and state and local governments have characterized contemporary U.S. federalism-more federal responsibility for redistribution and more state and local responsibility for development, which in turn increased public policy performance. This feature has been quite substantial since 1970s. As a result, this article suggests that despite the increased complexity of the U.S. federal system, it has evolved in such an appropriate way that would increase the efficiency of federal system by dividing a clear intergovernmental responsibility on major policy platforms.


Author(s):  
Margaret M. Mulrooney

A biracial Republican-Populist coalition gained power over state and local governments in the 1890s, and North Carolina’s Democratic Party responded with a vicious white-supremacy campaign. Meanwhile, a small group of old-time, elite, white businessmen launched what they called the “Wilmington Revolution” to end “Negro Domination” at the local level. Mulrooney contends that the 1898 Wilmington massacre and coup d’état were not aberrant events in the city’s history; rather, the instigators consciously replicated old patterns of behavior as a way to resolve mounting conflicts over race, place, and memory. Grounded in local elites’ interpretations of the 1770s and 1860s, the Wilmington revolution of 1898 occurred after lynching emerged in the 1880s as a spectacle of organized racist violence, while the mass media (newspapers, popular fiction, advertising, film) were shaping a national color line, and before southern progressives crafted their coherent vision of a modern, economically diversified, and racially segregated South.


Author(s):  
John Joseph Wallis

Over the last 225 years, government finances in the United States have gone through three distinct stages. In the first stage, 1790–1850, state governments actively pursued policies to promote economic development and financed them from revenues from state investments. In the second, 1850–1930, local governments became the most important level of government, as measured by revenues and expenditures, and revenues shifted toward the property tax. In the third period, 1930 to the present, the national government became the most active and largest level of government, financed through income and payroll taxes, and developed an extensive network of grants to state and local governments. The chapter tracks the changes in sources of revenues and purpose of expenditures, with specific attention paid to military spending over the entire period.


Author(s):  
R. Kelso

Australia is a nation of 20 million citizens occupying approximately the same land mass as the continental U.S. More than 80% of the population lives in the state capitals where the majority of state and federal government offices and employees are based. The heavily populated areas on the Eastern seaboard, including all of the six state capitals have advanced ICT capability and infrastructure and Australians readily adopt new technologies. However, there is recognition of a digital divide which corresponds with the “great dividing” mountain range separating the sparsely populated arid interior from the populated coastal regions (Trebeck, 2000). A common theme in political commentary is that Australians are “over-governed” with three levels of government, federal, state, and local. Many of the citizens living in isolated regions would say “over-governed” and “underserviced.” Most of the state and local governments, “… have experienced difficulties in managing the relative dis-economies of scale associated with their small and often scattered populations.” Rural and isolated regions are the first to suffer cutbacks in government services in periods of economic stringency. (O’Faircheallaigh, Wanna, & Weller, 1999, p. 98). Australia has, in addition to the Commonwealth government in Canberra, two territory governments, six state governments, and about 700 local governments. All three levels of government, federal, state, and local, have employed ICTs to address the “tyranny of distance” (Blainey, 1967), a term modified and used for nearly 40 years to describe the isolation and disadvantage experienced by residents in remote and regional Australia. While the three levels of Australian governments have been working co-operatively since federation in 1901 with the federal government progressively increasing its power over that time, their agencies and departments generally maintain high levels of separation; the Queensland Government Agent Program is the exception.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document