Many municipal and county governments provide services that are financed through user charges and fees. According to accepted accounting principles, these services should be accounted for in an enterprise fund. The use of enterprise funds s becoming increasingly popular to local governments. Despite their increasing popularity, the public finance literature has identified some significant equity, control, and accountability issues associated with the use of enterprise funds. This article explores how enterprise fund activity has fared in South Carolina cities and counties over the past decade, compares that with a national survey, and offers some possible explanations for the growth in their use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BunchBeverly (2000). "Changes in the Usage of Enterprise Funds by Large City Governments." Public Budgeting and Finance (Summer):15–29.
GitajnArthur (1984). Creating and Financing Public Enterprises.Washington, D.C.:Government Finance Officers Association.
4.
Government Finance Officers Association (2001). Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting.Chicago: Author.
5.
KraneDale, PlatonN. Rigos, and MelvinB. HillJr. (eds.) (2001). Home Rule in America: A Fifty-State Handbook.Washington D.C.:Congressional Quarterly Press.
6.
LaschChristopher (1995). The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy.New York: W.W. Norton.
7.
LevyJohn M. (2000). Contemporary Urban Planning, 5th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
8.
MenzelDonald C. (ed.) (1996). The American County: Frontiers of Knowledge.Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
9.
MorandoVincent L. and RobertD. Thomas (1977). The Forgotten Governments: County Commissions as Policy Makers.Gainesville, Fl: University Press of Florida.
10.
OsborneDavid and GaeblerTed (1993). Reinventing Government.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.
RubinIrene (1988). "Municipal Enterprises: Exploring Budgetary and Political Implications." Public Administration Review 48 (Janu-ary/February):542–550.
12.
SmithAndrew (1992). South Carolina's Communities: A Profile of Change.Columbia, SC: South Carolina Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
13.
StummTheodore J. (1996). "Municipal Enterprise Activities as Revenue Generation: A Different View." American Review of Public Administration26 (December):477–488.
14.
StummTheodore J. (1997). "Comparing Alternative Service Deliverv Modes: Municipal Enterprises Require Special Consider-ation." Journal of Urban Affairs19(3)275–289/
15.
StummTheodore J. (2000). "Fiscal Illusions and Municipal Enterprises." Municipal Finance Journal20 (Winter):61–72.
16.
StummTheodore J. and KahnAman (1994). "The Tax and Expenditure Effects of Subsidization by Municipal Utility Enterprises." Municipal Finance Journal 15 (Summer): 68–81.
17.
StummTheodore J. and KahnAman (1991). "Effects of Utility Enterprise Fund Subsidization on Municipal Taxes and Expenditure." State and Local Government Review28 (Spring):477–488.
18.
ThomasG. Scott (1998). The United States of Suburbia: How the Suburbs Tool Control of America and What they Plan to Do With It.Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
TyerCharlie (1989). "Municipal Enterprises and Taxing and Spending Policies: Public Avoidance and Fiscal Illusions." Public Administration Review49 (May/June):249–256.
21.
WilliamsDavid (2000). "Reinventing the Proverb of Government." Public Administration Review60 (November/December):522–554.
