Government responses to shocks, such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks and wars have consequences for budgets at the US federal and state levels. This article explores the impacts of major shocks on budget expenditures, and the long term implications of government resource allocations. The data include budget expenditures for the federal government and all 50 states from 1972–2008, as well as other economic and social demographic variables. Using a pooled time series cross-sectional design with panel corrected standard errors, we find that significant shocks, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, have triggered shifts in government spending priorities, and resulted in the decentralization of fiscal responsibility. Our findings illuminate the interplay between major shocks and budget practices, and begin to describe how flexible budgeting could more evenly distribute fiscal responsibility for public safety in the wake of disasters, terrorist attacks and wars.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbizadehS. and MahmoodY.1988. An Empirical Re-examination of Wagner's Law. Economics Letters, 26:2169–173.
2.
BeckN., and KatzJ. N. 1995. What to do and not to do: With time-series cross sectional data. American Journal of Political Science, 89: 634–647.
3.
BensonC. and EdwardC.2004. Understanding the economic and financial impacts of natural disasters, Part 611Vol. 4 of Disaster Risk Management Series. World Bank Publications, 119 pp.
4.
BerryWilliam, FordingRichard, and HansonRussell. Reassessing the “Race to the Bottom” in State Welfare Policy, The Journal of Politics, 65(2)327–349.
5.
BerryWilliam, FordingRichard, RingquistEvan, HansonRussell, and KlarnetCarl. Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the United States: A Re-appraisal, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 10(2)117–135.
6.
BirdR. M. 1972. The displacement effect: A critical note. Finanzarchiv30:3454–463.
7.
BirklandT. A. 1997. After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Georgetown University Press, 178 pp.
8.
BirklandT. A. 1998. Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18:153–74.
9.
BirklandT. A. and WatermanS.2008. Is Federalism the Reason for Policy Failure in Hurricane Katrina?Publius, 38:4692–714.
10.
CaplanD.2006. Management Accounting Concepts and Techniques. Creative Commons Website. Available at: http://www.introtocost.info/
11.
DawsonR. E., & RobinsonJ. (1963). Interparty competition, economic variables, and welfare policies in the United States. Journal of Politics, 2, 265–289.
12.
DriscollJ. C. and KraayA.1998. Spatial Correlations in Panel Data. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 1553.
13.
EriksonRobert S., WrightGerald C.Jr., and McIverJohn. 1989. “Political Parties, Public Opinion, and State Policy in the United States.” American Political Science Review83 (3): 729–50.
14.
GoffM.1998. Persistence in government spending fluctuations: New evidence on the displacement effect. Public Choice97: 141–157.
15.
GuptaS.P. 1967. Public Expenditures and Economic Growth: A Time-Series Analysis. Public Finance, 22:4423–461.
HenreksonM.1994. The Peacock-Wiseman hypothesis. In GemmellN. (Ed.), The growth of the public sector: Theories and international evidence, 53–71.
18.
AldershotElgar and HoechleD.2006. Xtscc: Stata Module to Calculate Robust Standard Errors for Panels with Cross- Sectional Dependence. Statistical Software Components, S456787.
19.
HsiaoC.2003. Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 382 pp.
20.
HutchcroftP. D. 2001. Centralization and Decentralization in Administration and Politics: Assessing Territorial Dimensions of Authority and Power. Governance, 14:123–53.
21.
KaplanR.2000. Variance Analysis and Flexible Budgeting. Industry and Note Background, Harvard Business Review, 11 pp.
22.
KaplowL.1991. Incentives and Government Relief for Risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4: 167–175.
23.
KingdonJ. W. 1995. “Agenda Setting” in Public Policy: The essential readings, ed.TheodouloS.Z. and CahnM.A. Prentice Hall, 105–113.
24.
LegrenziG.2001. The “displacement effect” in the growth of the Italian general government expenditure, presented at the 75th international conference of policy modeling for European and issues global, Brussels, July 5–7.
25.
LegrenziG, 2004. The displacement effect in the growth of governments. Public Choice, 120: 191–204.
26.
LessmannS. Government, Interest Groups and Incrementalism. European Journal of Political Research, 17:4 449–469
27.
LetelierL.2005. Explaining fiscal decentralization. Public Finance Review, 33:2155–183.
28.
Lewis-BeckM., and RiceT.1985. Government Growth in the United States. Journal of Politics, 27: 2–30.
29.
Martinez-VazquezJ. and TimofeevA.2009. A Fiscal Perspective of Sate Rescaling. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2:1 85–105.
30.
MitchellT. J. and ThomasM.2006. Marketing Applications for Variance Analysis: The Need for a New Variance Model. AAA 2007 Management Accounting Section (MAS), Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=921635.
31.
NomuraM.1991. The displacement effect on government expenditure of two oil crises: Japan, the United Kingdom, and the Unites State. The Manchester School59: 408–418.
32.
NomuraM.1995. Wagner's hypothesis and displacement effect in Japan, 1960–1991. Public Finance50: 121–135.
33.
OatesW.1972. Fiscal federalism. Harcourt Brace, 256 pp.
34.
PeacockA. T. and WisemanJ.1961. The growth of the public expenditure in the United Kingdom. Princeton University Press, 245 pp.
35.
PlotnickRobert D., and Richard F. Winters. 1985. “A Politico-Economic Theory of Income Distribution.” American Political Science Review79 (2): 458–73.
36.
PosnerP.2007. The Politics of Coercive Federalism in the Bush Era. Publius: the Journal of Federalism, 37:3390–412.
37.
PryorF. L. 1968. Public Expenditures in Communist and Capitalist Nations. Richard D Irwin Press, 543 pp.
38.
RobinsonAnn and YsanderBengt-Christer. 1982. Re-establishing Budgetary Flexibility. Public Budgeting & Finance, 2(3)21–34.
39.
RockoffH.1999. World War II and the Growth of the Federal Government. Japan and the World Economy, 11:2245–262.
40.
SaccoJohn F. and StalebrinkOdd J.2010. Governmental Accounting, Global Markets and Ideologies: A Historical Study of State and Local Practices in the United States. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 22(1)112–133.
41.
TussingD. A. and HenningJ. A.1991. Measuring the Effect of Structural Change on Long-Term Public Expenditure Growth: the United States, 1929 to 198 1. Public Finance Review, 19:4393–411.
42.
TweedieJack1994. “Resources Rather than Needs: A State-Centered Model of Welfare Policy-Making.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 651–72.
43.
WattP.A. 1979. Econometric Testing of the Displacement Effect: A Note. Finanzarchiv, 36:3445–448.
44.
WaughW. L. Jr. 2003. Terrorism, Homeland Security and the National Emergency Management Network. Public Organization Review 3:4 373–385.
45.
WaughW. L. Jr. 2007. EMAC, Katrina, and the Governors of Louisiana and Mississippi. Public Administration Review, 67(Issue Supplement): 107–113.
46.
WaughW. LJr.. and StreibG.2006. Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency Management. Public Administration Review, 66 (Special Issue): 131–140.
