Local policy makers operate within a confined decision-making environment and their policy-making capacities are limited by intergovernmental constraints, political culture, service demand, and economic and fiscal condition. This study investigates the effects of these factors on certain types of local fiscal policy adoption in the United States. Based on data from hundred major American cities, the result shows that a combination of state aid, state-imposed local tax and expenditure limits, fiscal decentralization, and tax authority has varied effects on the adoption of fiscal policies such as property tax increases, other tax increases, fees and user charge increases, and personnel cuts.
AmielLindsayDellerStevenStallmannJudith. 2009. The construction of a tax and expenditure limitation index for the US. Working paper No. 536. University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
2.
BartleJohn R.1996. Coping with cutbacks: City response to aid cuts in New York State. State and Local Government Review28:38–48.
3.
BartleJohn R.EbdonCarolKraneDale. 2003. Beyond the property tax: Local government revenue diversification. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management15:622.
4.
CarrJeredEllingRichard C.KrawczykElly. 2010. Confronting hard times in local government: Public views about responding to fiscal stress. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2–5, Washington, DC.
5.
DyeRichard F.McGuireTherese J.. 1997. The effect of property tax limitation measures on local government fiscal behavior. Journal of Public Economics66:469–87.
6.
DyeRichard F.McGuireTherese J.P. McMillenDaniel. 2005. Are property tax limitations more binding over time?National Tax Journal58:215–25.
7.
DyeRichard F.ReschovskyAndrew. 2008. Property tax responses to state aid cuts in the recent fiscal crisis. Public Budgeting & Finance28:87–111.
8.
HawkinsBrett W.1989. A comparison of local and external influences on city strategies for coping with fiscal strain. Research in Urban Policy3:73–90.
9.
HendrickRebecca M.2002. Revenue diversification: Fiscal illusion or flexible financial management. Public Budgeting & Finance22:52–72.
10.
HendrickRebecca M.2011. Managing the fiscal metropolis: The financial policies, practices, and health of suburban municipalities. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
11.
HendrickRebecca M.CrawfordJared. 2014. Municipal fiscal policy space and fiscal structure: Tools for managing spending volatility. Public Budgeting & Finance34:24–50.
12.
HendrickRebecca M.JimenezBenedict S.LalKamna. 2011. Does local government fragmentation reduce local spending?Urban Affairs Review47:467–510.
13.
HoeneChristopherPaganoMichael A.. 2008. Cities and state fiscal structure. Research report on America’s cities. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
14.
HoeneChristopherPaganoMichael A.. 2011. City fiscal conditions in 2011. Research brief on America’s cities. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
15.
IngramPaulClayKaren. 2000. The choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and implications for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology26:525–46.
16.
JimenezBenedict S.2014. Raise taxes, cut services, or lay off staff: Citizens in the fiscal retrenchment process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory24:923–53.
17.
JimenezBenedict S.2017. Institutional constraints, rule following, and circumvention: Tax and expenditure limits and the choice of fiscal tools during a budget crisis. Public Budgeting & Finance37:5–34.
18.
JohnstonJocelyn M.PaganoMichael A.RussoPhilip A.Jr. 2000. State limits and state aid: An exploratory analysis of county revenue structure. State and Local Government Review32:86–97.
19.
JordanMegan M.WagnerGary A.. 2008. Revenue diversification in Arkansas cities: The budgetary and tax effort impacts. Public Budgeting & Finance28:68–82.
20.
JoycePhilip G.MullinsDaniel R.. 1991. The changing fiscal structure of the state and local public sector: The impact of tax and expenditure limitations. Public Administration Review51:240–53.
21.
KousserThad.McCubbinsMatthew D.MouleEllen. 2008. For whom the TEL tolls: Can state tax and expenditure limits effectively reduce spending?State Politics & Policy Quarterly8:331–61.
22.
LaddHelen F.WilsonJulie B.. 1982. Why voters support tax limitations: Evidence from Massachusetts’ proposition 2-1/2. National Tax Journal35:121–48.
23.
LevineCharles H.1978. Organizational decline and cutback management. Public Administration Review38:316–25.
24.
LevineCharles H.RubinIrene S.WolohojianGeorge G.. 1981. The politics of retrenchment: How local governments manage fiscal stress. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
MaherCraig S.DellerSteven C.. 2007. Municipal responses to fiscal stress. International Journal of Public Administration30:1549–72.
26.
MorganDavid R.PammerWilliam J.Jr. 1988. Coping with fiscal stress: Predicting the use of financial management practices among U.S. cities. Urban Affairs Quarterly24:69–86.
27.
MullinsDaniel R.JoycePhilip G.. 1996. Tax and expenditure limitations and state and local fiscal structure: An empirical assessment. Public Budgeting & Finance16:75–101.
28.
NelsonKimberly L.2012. Municipal choices during a recession: Bounded rationality and innovation. State and Local Government Review44:44S–63S.
29.
PaganoMichael A.1988. Fiscal disruptions and city responses: Stability, equilibrium, and city capital budgeting. Urban Affairs Quarterly24:118–37.
30.
PaganoMichael A.HoeneChristopher W.. 2010. States and the fiscal policy space of cities. In The property tax and local autonomy, eds. BellM.BrunoriD.YoungmanJ., 243–84. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
31.
PammerWilliam J.Jr1990. Managing fiscal strain in major American cities: Understanding retrenchment in the public sector. New York: Greenwood Press.
32.
ShadbegianRonald J.2003. Did the property tax revolt affect local public education? Evidence from panel data. Public Finance Review31:120–21.
33.
ShannonJack P.1987. State revenue diversification—The search for balance. In The quest for balance in state-local revenue structures, ed. StockerFrederick D., 9–38. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
34.
ShiYuTaoJie. 2018. Faulty’ fiscal illusion: Examining the relationship between revenue diversification and tax burden in major US cities across the economic cycle. Local Government Studies44:416–35.
35.
SimonsenBillRobbinsMark D.. 2003. Reasonableness, satisfaction, and willingness to pay property taxes. Urban Affairs Review38:831–54.
SkidmoreMarkScorsoneEric. 2011. Causes and consequences of fiscal stress in Michigan cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics41:360–71.
38.
SokolowAlvin D.2000. The changing property tax in the West: State centralization of local finances. Public Budgeting and Finance20:85–102.
39.
StephensG. Ross. 1974. State centralization and the erosion of local autonomy. The Journal of Politics36:44–76.
40.
StewartLa Shonda M.HammanJohn A.Pink-HarperStephanie A.. 2018. The stabilization effect of local government savings: The case of Illinois counties. Public Budgeting and Finance38:23–39.
41.
SuyderhoudJack P.1994. Stale-local revenue diversification, balance, and fiscal performance. Public Finance Quarterly22:168–94.
42.
TieboutCharles M.1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64:416–24.
43.
WolmanHarold. 1980. Local government strategies to cope with fiscal pressure. In Fiscal stress and public policy, eds. LevineCharles H.RubinIrene, 231–48. London, UK: Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
