This study explores the impact of state-imposed fiscal rules on municipal fiscal
outcomes. It provides a recent profile of state-imposed fiscal rules. Further, with
particular attention to the years before, during, and after the Great Recession, this
study tests whether municipal fiscal outcomes vary depending on the institutional
configuration of state-imposed fiscal rules. This study identifies that there has been a
large variation in the institutional design of state-imposed fiscal rules at least since
1991. Using the Government Finance Officers Association’s financial indicator database
from 2006 to 2011, this study finds that different rule compositions have distinctive
impacts on municipal fiscal outcomes.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
1993, March. State laws governing local government
structure and administration. Washington, DC:
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
M-186.
2.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
1995, March. Tax and expenditure limits on local
governments. Washington, DC:
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
M-194.
3.
AmielLindsayDellerStevenStallmannJudith. 2009. The construction of a tax and
expenditure limitation index for the US. Staff Paper No. 536,
the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics,
Madison, WI.
4.
Blom-HansenJensBækgaardMartinSerritzlewSøren. 2014. Tax limitations and revenue shifting
strategies in local government. Public Budgeting &
Finance34:64–84.
5.
BorgeLars-ErikHoplandA.. 2014. Fiscal adjustment and
balanced-budget-rules: Evidence from a Norwegian reform. In
Proceedings of 8th Norwegian-German Seminar on Public Economics, eds
SchjelderupGuttormKöthenbürgerMarko, 1–22. Munich,
Germany: CESifo Group.
6.
BrownKen W.1993. The 10-point test of financial condition: Toward an
easy-to-use assessment tool for smaller cities. Government
Finance Review9:21–21.
7.
CarrollDeborah A.2009. Diversifying municipal government revenue structures:
Fiscal illusion or instability?Public Budgeting & Finance29:27–48.
8.
ChakrabartiRajashriLivingstonMaxRoyJoydeep. 2014. Did cuts in state aid during the Great
Recession lead to changes in local property taxes?Education Finance & Policy9:383–416.
9.
ClevesM.GouldW.GouldW. W.GutierrezR.MarchenkoY.. 2008. An introduction to survival analysis using
Stata. College Station, TX:
Stata Press.
10.
CoateStephenKnightBrian. 2011. Government form and public spending:
Theory and evidence from US municipalities. American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy3:82–112.
11.
DenisonDwight V.HackbartMerlMoodyMichael. 2006. State debt limits: How many are
enough?Public Budgeting & Finance26:22–39.
12.
DenoKevin T.MehayStephen L.. 1987. Municipal management structure and
fiscal performance: Do city managers make a difference?Southern Economic Journal53:627–42.
13.
DesaiUday. 2018. Responses to recession era fiscal
stress: Local government strategies in New Mexico. Public
Finance & Management18:64–83.
14.
FarnhamPaul G.1985. Re-examining local debt limits: A disaggregated
analysis. Southern Economic Journal51:1186–201.
15.
FisherRonald C.1982. Income and grant effects on local expenditure: The
flypaper effect and other difficulties. Journal of Urban
Economics12:324–45.
16.
GiertzJ. FredMcGuireTherese J.. 1990. State aid and state-imposed controls
and local fiscal outcomes. In Proceedings of the Annual
Conference on Taxation Held under the Auspices of the National Tax Association-Tax
Institute of America, eds. StockerFrederick D.StatonJanet L., 62–67. Columbus,
OH: National Tax Association-Tax Institute of
America.
HandMichael L.PiersonKawikaThompsonFred. 2009. A replication study of “why do cities
hoard cash? (The Accounting Review 2009). Public Finance
Review44:681–87.
19.
HausmanJerry A.TaylorWilliam E.. 1981. Panel data and unobservable individual
effects. Econometrica49:1377–98.
20.
HendrickRebecca. 2004. Assessing and measuring the fiscal
heath of local governments focus on Chicago suburban municipalities.
Urban Affairs Review40:78–114.
21.
HoAlfred Tat-Kei. 2011. PBB in American local governments: It’s
more than a management tool. Public Administration
Review71:391–401.
22.
HouYilin. 2003. What stabilizes state general fund
expenditures in downturn years—Budget stabilization fund or general fund unreserved
undesignated balance?Public Budgeting & Finance23:64–91.
23.
HouYilinSmithDaniel L.. 2010. Do state balanced budget requirements
matter? Testing two explanatory frameworks. Public
Choice145:57–79.
24.
HurMyungsoon. 2007. Fiscal limits and state fiscal
structure: An analysis of state revenue structure and indebtedness.
Municipal Finance Journal28:19–35.
25.
JacobBenoyHendrickRebecca. 2012. Assessing the financial condition of
local governments. In Handbook of local government fiscal
health, eds LevineH.ScorsoneE. A.JusticeJ. B., 11–41. Burlington,
MA: Jones &
Bartlett.
26.
KaplowLouis. 1995. A model of the optimal complexity of
legal rules. Journal of Law, Economics, &
Organization11:150–63.
27.
LewisCarol W.1994. Budgetary balance: The norm, concept, and practice in
large US cities. Public Administration Review54:515–24.
28.
MaherCraig S.2013. Measuring financial condition: An essential element of
management during periods of fiscal stress. The Journal of
Government Financial Management62:20–25.
MaherCraig S.DellerSteven C.StallmannJudith I.ParkSungho. 2016. The impact of tax and expenditure
limits on municipal credit ratings. The American Review of
Public Administration46:592–613.
31.
MaherCraig S.ParkSunghoHarroldJames. 2016. The effects of tax and expenditure
limits on municipal pension and OPEB funding during the Great Recession.
Public Finance & Management16:121–46.
32.
MartinLawrence L.LeveyRichardCawleyJenna. 2015. The “new normal” for local
government. State and Local Government Review44:17S–28S.
33.
McEachernWilliam A.1978. Collective decision rules and local debt choice: A test
of the median-voter hypothesis. National Tax Journal31:129–36.
34.
MullinsDaniel R.WallinBruce A.. 2004. Tax and expenditure limitations:
Introduction and overview. Public Budgeting &
Finance24:2–15.
35.
OstromElinor. 2005. Understanding institutional
diversity. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
36.
ParkJi-HyungParkSunghoMaherCraig S.. 2018. The effects of tax and expenditure
limitations (TELs) on municipal fiscal outcomes during a period of fiscal
distress. Public Finance & Management18:84–110.
37.
ParkSunghoMaherCraig S.EbdonCarol. 2018. Local property tax limits in Nebraska:
Within-state variations in effects. Public Administration
Quarterly42:328–71.
38.
PetersB. Guy. 2012. Institutional theory in political science: The
new institutionalism. New York:
The Continuum International.
39.
PiersonPaul. 2000. The limits of design: Explaining
institutional origins and change. Governance13:475–99.
40.
PoterbaJames M.1995. Balanced budget rules and fiscal policy: Evidence from
the states. National Tax Journal48:329–36.
41.
PoterbaJames M.RuebenKim S.. 1999. Fiscal rules and state borrowing costs:
Evidence from California and other states. San
Francisco: Public Policy Institute of
California.
42.
PoterbaJames M.HagenJurgen von. eds. 2008. Fiscal institutions and fiscal
performance. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
43.
PrimoDavid M.2007. Rules and restraint: Government spending and the design of
institutions. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
44.
RubinIrene S.2010. The politics of public budgeting: Getting and spending,
borrowing and balancing, 6th ed. Washington,
DC: CQ Press.
45.
RundleJonathan. 2009. Institutional aspects and fiscal
outcomes of US municipal governance. Doctoral diss.,
George Mason University, Fairfax,
VA.
46.
SpringerJob D.LusbyAaron K.LeathermanJohn C.FeatherstoneAllen M.. 2009. An evaluation of alternative tax and
expenditure limitation policies on Kansas local governments.
Public Budgeting & Finance29:48–70.
47.
StewartLa Shonda M.HammanJohn A.Pink-HarperStephanie A.. 2018. The stabilization effect of local
government savings: The case of Illinois counties. Public
Budgeting & Finance38:23–39.
48.
SunRui. 2014. Reevaluating the effect of tax and
expenditure limitations: An instrumental variable approach.
Public Finance Review42:92–116.
49.
SwindellDavidStenbergCarlSvaraJames H.. 2017. Navigating the waters between local
autonomy and state preemption. Paper presented at the Alliance
for Innovation: Transforming Local Government Conference, Tulsa,
OK.
50.
TurnbullGeoffrey K.1998. The overspending and flypaper effects of fiscal
illusion: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Urban
Economics44:1–26.
51.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.
2005–2010. The Census Survey of Local Government
Finances. https://www.census.gov/govs/local/(accessed January 20, 2017).
von HagenJürgen. 2002. Fiscal rules, fiscal institutions, and
fiscal performance. Economic and Social Review,
33:263–84.
54.
WagnerRichard E.1976. Revenue structure, fiscal illusion, and budgetary
choice. Public Choice25:45–61.
55.
YusufJuita-ElenaFowlesJacobGrizzleCleopatra. 2012. State fiscal constraints on local
government borrowing-Effects on scale and cost. In Handbook of
local government fiscal health, eds LevineH.ScorsoneE. A.JusticeJ. B., 475–504. Burlington,
MA: Jones &
Bartlett.
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.
