Proper management of idle cash reserves is becoming a major feature within county government revenue policy. Each facet of the process, from collections and disbursements to investments, is critical if local governments expect to maximize cash flow. This study examines cash management practices of county governments in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. External governmental factors, banking practices, and investment choices are all examined to assess contributions to return on investments. The findings indicate that decision-maker responsibility, the use of external banks, and the use of zero balance accounts or concentration accounts have a positive impact on investment return. In addition, as money becomes more available, investment prerogatives generally focus on the local government investment pool.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronsonJ.R. (1968) “The idle cash balances of state and local governments: An economic problem of national concern”, Journal of Finance, 21(3)499–508.
2.
BlandR.L. (1986) “The effect of cash management innovations on the investment income of local governments”, State and Local Government Review, 18(1)20–25.
3.
BozemanB. and KingsleyG. (1998) “Risk culture in private and public organizations”, Public Administration Review, 58(1)109–118.
4.
CoeC.K. (2007) Government and Nonprofit Financial Management.Vienna, Virginia: Management Concepts.
5.
CoeC.K. (1988) “The effects of cash management assistance by states to local governments”, Public Budgeting & Finance, 8(2)80–90.
6.
CooperS.K. (1972) “The economics of public funds policies: A reconsideration”, National Tax Journal, 25(1)97–99.
7.
CothranD.A. (1986) “Strategies for enhancing financial management in small governments”, State and Local Government Review, 18(1)31–36.
8.
ForbesR.W. (1980) “State and local government cash management practices”, in: PetersonJ. and SpainC. (eds) Essays in Public Finance and Financial Management, p. 53, Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.
9.
GuildN.B. (1981) The Public Money Manager's Handbook.Chicago: Crain Books.
10.
KearnsK.P. (1995) “Accountability and entrepreneurial public management: The case of the Orange County investment fund”, Public Budgeting & Finance, 15(4)3–21.
11.
LarsonM.C. (2004) “Cash and investment management”, in: AronsonJ. R. and E. (eds) Management Policies in Local Government Finance, 5th ed, pp. 451–477, Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association.
12.
McCueC.P. (2000) “The risk-return paradox of local government investing”, Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(3)80–100.
MillarA. (1988) “Selecting capital investment projects for local governments”, Public Budgeting & Finance, 8(3)63–77.
15.
MillerG. (1982) A Public Investor's Guide to Money Market Instruments.Chicago: Municipal Finance Officer's Association.
16.
ModlinS.W. (2008) “Defining involvement of county commissioners in the budget formulation process”, Politics & Policy, 36(6)56–72.
17.
ModlinS.W. (2010) “Rationalizing the local government decision making process: A model for state oversight of local government finances”, Public Performance & Management Review, 33(4)13–39.
Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury, Division of County Audit. (2008) Annual financial reports. Accessed June 10, 2009 (http://www.comptroller1.state.tn.us).
23.
ThompsonF. and GatesB.L. (1988) “Estimating the liquidity of cash pools”, State and Local Government Review, 20(3)105–112.
24.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1965) Investment of Idle Cash Balances by State and Local Governments. Supplement to Report A-3.Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office 1965.
25.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1988) Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism. Vol. 2, Report M-55. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
26.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2010) Federal Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments. Historical Tables, Table 429.Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
