The authors analyze the intraregional distribution patterns of federal expenditures across Southern Californian cities, using Consolidated Federal Funds Reports data from fiscal years 1983 to 1996. The findings suggest that although poorer cities benefit from larger amounts of anti-poverty funds, they receive lower amounts of other types of expenditure. Thus, the allocation of federal funds fails to promote fiscal equalization across cities and actually contributes to urban disparities. Regression analyses reveal that a city’s poverty level and its proportion of minorities and immigrants have a negative impact on federal expenditure, but its fiscal capacity and institutional strength have a positive impact.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronson, J. R. , and J. L. Hilley. 1986. Financing state and local governments. In Studies of government finance. Edited by J. R. Aronson and J. L. Hilley. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
2.
Buchanan, J. M.1950. Federalism and fiscal equity. American Economic Review40 (4): 583-599.
3.
California State Controller . 1982. Annual reports of financial transactions concerning cities of California. Sacramento, CA: Author.
4.
California State Controller . 1997. Annual reports of financial transactions concerning cities of California. Sacramento, CA: Author.
5.
Donahue, J. D.1999. Hazardous crosscurrents: Confronting inequality in an era of devolution. New York: Century Foundation Press.
6.
Gramlich, E. M. , and D. S. Laren. 1984. Migration and income redistribution responsibilities. Journal of Human Resources19: 489-511.
7.
Greene, K. V. , and T. J. Parliament. 1980. Political externalities, efficiency, and the welfare losses from consolidation. National Tax Journal33: 209-217.
8.
Hovey, H. A.1999. Can states afford devolution? The fiscal implications of shifting federal responsibilities to state and local governments. New York: Century Foundation Press.
9.
Ladd, H. , and J. Yinger. 1989. America’s ailing cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
10.
Mieszkowski, P. , and R. A. Musgrave. 1999. Federalism, grants, and fiscal equalization. National Tax Journal52 (2): 239-260.
11.
Musgrave, R. A.1959. The theory of public finance: A study in public economy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Musso, J. A.1998. Fiscal federalism as a framework for governance reform. In Handbook of public finance, edited by F. Thompson and M. T. Green, 347-396. New York: Marcel Dekker.
13.
Musso, J. A.2000. Coping with growth and fiscal constraint in Southern California. Southern California Studies Center Working Paper, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
14.
Musso, J. A. , and J. Quigley. 1996. Intergovernmental fiscal relations in California: A critical evaluation. In Infrastructure and the complexity of economic development, edited by D. Batten and C. Karlsson. New York: Springer-Verlag.
15.
Nivola, P.1999. Laws of the landscape: How policies shape cities in Europe and America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
16.
Oates, W. E.1972. Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace.
17.
Pack, J. R.1998. Poverty and urban public expenditures. Urban Studies35 (11): 1995-2019.
18.
Parker, R. A.1995. Patterns of federal urban spending: Central cities and their suburbs 1983-1992. Urban Affairs Review31 (2): 184-205.
19.
Parker, R. A.1997. A stealth urban policy in the US? Federal spending in five large metropolitan regions, 1984-93. Urban Studies34 (11): 1831-1850.
20.
Persky, J. , H. Kurban, and T. W. Lester. 2000. The impact of federal and state expenditures on residential land absorption: A quantitative case study—Chicago. Paper presented at the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, October, Washington, DC.
21.
Qiao, Y.1999. Interstate fiscal disparities in America: A study of trends and causes. New York: Garland.
22.
Reynolds, M. , and E. Smolensky. 1977. Post-fisc distributions of income in 1950, 1961, and 1970. Public Finance Quarterly5 (4): 419-438.
23.
Ruggles, P.1991. The impact of government tax and expenditure programs on the distribution of income in the United States. In Economic inequality and poverty: International perspectives, edited by L. Osberg, 220-245. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
24.
Stewart, C. T., Jr.1998. Inequality and equity, economics of greed, politics of envy, ethics of equality. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
25.
Summers, A. A. 1999. Update on the Philadelphia Metropolitan Case Study. Paper presented at the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, June, Washington, DC.
26.
Tiebout, C.1956. A pure theory of public expenditure. Journal of Political Economy64: 416-424.
27.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1980. Census of population and housing: Summary tape files. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1990. Census of population and housing: Summary tape files. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
U.S. Bureau of the Census . 1983-1996. Consolidated federal funds reports. Washington, DC: Author.
30.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics . 1992. Current population survey: Annual demographic files. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
Yinger, J.1986. On fiscal disparities across cities. Journal of Urban Economics19: 316-337.
