Spurred by the tax and expenditure limitation movement of the late 1970s, user charges have grown to become a major source of revenue for local governments. Both theory and literature propose that a well-designed user-charge structure could reduce spending on the charge-financed services by strengthening the relationship between service and payment. This study empirically tests such a possibility by examining the level of expenditure for sewer and parks and recreation services. Using a panel of 686 American cities for the sewer services and 715 cities for the parks and recreation services between 1972 and 2004, this study finds evidence that greater reliance on user charges to finance government services leads to a reduction in municipal expenditures.
BaileyS. J. (1994a). Charging for local government services: A coherent philosophy. Public Administration, 72, 365-384.
2.
BaileyS. J. (1994b). User-charges for urban services. Urban Studies, 31, 745.
3.
BergstromT. C.GoodmanR. P. (1973). Private demands for public goods. American Economic Review, 63, 280-296.
4.
BierhanzlE. J.DowningP. B. (1998). User charges and bureaucratic inefficiency. Atlantic Economic Journal, 26, 175.
5.
BierhanzlE. J.DowningP. B. (2004). User charges and special districts. In AronsonJ. R.SchwartzE. (Eds.), Management policies in local government finance (5th ed., pp. 315-351). Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
6.
BowenH. R. (1943). The interpretation of voting in the allocation of economic resources. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 58(1), 27-48.
7.
BoyneG. A. (1998a). Bureaucratic theory meets reality: Public choice and service contracting in U.S. local government. Public Administration Review, 58, 474.
8.
BoyneG. A. (1998b). Competitive tendering in local government: A review of theory and evidence. Public Administration, 76, 695-712.
9.
BuchananJ. M. (1967). Public finance in democratic process: Fiscal institutions and individual choice. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
10.
CourantP. N.GramlichE. M.RubinfeldD. L. (1979). The stimulative effects of intergovernmental grants: Or why money sticks where it hits. In MieszkowskiP. M.OaklandW. H. (Eds.), Fiscal federalism and grants-in-aid. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
11.
CreeseA. L. (1991). User charges for health care: A review of recent experience. Health Policy and Planning, 6, 309-319.
12.
DeaconR. T. (1979). The expenditure effects of alternative public supply institutions. Public Choice34, 381.
13.
DenoK. T.MehayS. L. (1987). Municipal management structure and fiscal performance: Do city managers make a difference?Southern Economic Journal, 53, 627.
14.
DowningP. B. (1992). The revenue potential of user charges in municipal finance. Public Finance Review, 20, 512-527.
15.
DownsA. (1960). Why the government budget is too small in a democracy. World Politics, 12, 541-563.
16.
GoetzC. J. (1977). Fiscal illusion in state and local finance. In BorcherdingT. E. (Ed.), Budgets and bureaucrats: The sources of government growth. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
17.
GriffinD. C. (1992). Welfare gains from user charges for government health services. Health Policy and Planning, 7, 177-180.
18.
HinesJ. R.Jr.ThalerR. H. (1995). Anomalies: The flypaper effect. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 217-226.
19.
HolseyC. M. (1993). Price and income distortions under separate spending and taxing decisions. Journal of Public Economics, 50, 93-114.
20.
JohnsonJ. A. (1969). The distribution of the burden of sewer user changes under various charge formulas. National Tax Journal, 22, 472-485.
21.
JungC.EomT. H.KimJ.SunR. (2009). Longitudianl effects of user charges on the expenditure level of charge-financed services: The Georgia case (1985-2007). Municipal Finance Journal, 30(3), 1-28.
22.
KennedyP. E. (1981). Estimation with correctly interpreted dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. American Economic Review, 71, 801-801.
23.
KnightB. G. (2000). The flypaper effect unstuck: Evidence on endogenous grants from the Federal Highway Aid Program. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
24.
KodrzyckiY. K. (1998, January/February). Fiscal pressures and the privatization of local services. New England Economic Review, 39.
25.
Martinez-VazquezJ. (1983). Renters’ illusion or savvy?Public Finance Quarterly, 11, 237-247.
26.
MercerL. J.MorganW. D. (1983). The relative efficiency and revenue potential of local user charges: The California case. National Tax Journal, 36, 203-212.
27.
MikesellJ. L. (2007). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications in the public sector (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
28.
MoulderE. R. (2002). Financing parks and recreation: User fees and fund-raising as revenue sources. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
29.
NetzerD. (1992). Differences in reliance on user charges by American state and local governments. Public Finance Review, 20, 499-511.
30.
NiskanenW. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago, IL: Aldine, Atherton.
31.
NiskanenW. A. (1975). Bureaucrats and politicians. Journal of Law and Economics, 18, 617-643.
32.
OatesW. E. (1979). Lump-sum intergovernmental grants have price effects. In MieszkowskiP. M.OaklandW. H. (Eds.), Fiscal federalism and grants-in-aid. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
33.
PascalA. H. (1984). EBBF: A guide to installing equitable beneficiary-based finance in local government. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
34.
PuvianiA. (1903). Teoria della illusione finanziaria. Milano, Italy: Remo Sandron.
35.
RogersP.SilvaR. D.BhatiaR. (2002). Water is an economic good: How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water Policy, 4(1), 1-17.
36.
RomerT.RosenthalH. (1982). Median voters or budget maximizers: Evidence from school expenditure referenda. Economic Inquiry, 20, 556-578.
37.
SavasE. S.BaumolD.WellsW. A. (1977). Financing solid waste collection. In SavasE. S.BaumolD. (Eds.), The organization and efficiency of solid waste collection. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
38.
SinghalM. (2008). Special interest groups and the allocation of public funds. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 548-564.
39.
ThompsonF. (2007). The political economy of public administration. In RabinJ.HildrethW. B.MillerG. (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (3rd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis.
40.
TurnbullG. K.MitiasP. M. (1999). The median voter model across levels of government. Public Choice, 99, 119.
41.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1987). Local revenue diversification: User charges (No. SR-6). Washington, DC: Author.
42.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1962-2004). Annual survey of local government finances and census of governments.
43.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1977). 1977 Census of governments, volumn 4, number 5, compendium of government finances: 1977: Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
44.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). 2002 Census of governments, volumn 4, number 5, compendium of government finances: 2002: Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
45.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). Wasterwater infrastructure financing: Stakeholder views on a national infrastructure bank and public-private partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10728.pdf
46.
WagnerR. E. (1976). Revenue structure, fiscal illusion, and budgetary choice. Public Choice, 25(1), 45-61.
ZornC. K. (1991). User charges and fees. In PetersenJ. E.StrachotaD. R. (Eds.), Local government finance: Concepts and practices (pp. 135-151). Chicago, IL: Government Finance Officers Association.
