Local governments are continually facing challenges that can drastically influence savings levels and service provisions. From deteriorating fiscal environments to escalating internal costs, maintaining adequate undesignated revenue streams becomes increasingly difficult. The authors evaluate the connection between economic volatility and governmental savings levels. They find that volatility influences counties’ level of saving, but there are differences in how volatility in specific revenue sources affects the size of savings. The findings indicate that counties in Illinois, North Carolina, and Mississippi are able to save in accordance with evolving fiscal conditions. Volatility among various revenue streams, unemployment, and even ideology of the electorate all have significant influence on county fund balance levels. The authors conclude that savings increase with volatility and counties use their savings to fill budget gaps in times of fiscal stress.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronsonR.J. (1968) “The idle balance of state and local governments: An economic problem of national concern”, Journal of Finance, 23(3)499–508.
2.
CarrollDA. and GoodmanC.B. (2011) “The effects of assessment quality on revenue volatility”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 31(1)76–94.
3.
DouglasJ.W. and GaddieR.K. (2002) “State rainy day funds and fiscal crises: Rainy day funds and the 1990–1991 recession revisited”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 22(1)19–30.
GianakisG. and SnowD. (2007) “The implementation and utilization of stabilization funds by local governments in Massachusetts”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 27(1)86–103.
6.
GoldS.D. (1984) “Contingency measures and fiscal limitations: The real world significance of some recent state budget innovations”, National Tax Journal, 37(3)421–432.
7.
GrizzleC. (2010) “The impact of budget stabilization funds on state general obligation bond ratings”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 30(2)95–111.
8.
GujaratiD.N. (1995) Basic econometrics (3rd edition), New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
HembreeH. and SheltonM. (1999) “Benchmarking and local government reserve funds: Theory versus practice”, Public Management, 81(9)16–21.
10.
HouY. (2003) “What stabilizes state general fund expenditures in downturn years-budget stabilization fund or general fund unreserved undesignated balance?”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 23(3)64–91.
11.
HouY. and MoynihanD.P. (2008) “The case for countercyclical fiscal capacity”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(1)139–159.
12.
HendrickR. (2006) “The role of slack in local government finances”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 26(1)14–46.
13.
JoyceP.G. (2001) “What's so magical about five percent? A nationwide look at factors that influence the optimal size of state rainy day funds”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 21(2)62–87.
14.
KrizK.A. (2003) “The optimal level of local government fund balances: A simulation approach”, State Tax Notes Magazine, 27(10)887–892.
15.
LowryR.C.AltJ.E., and FerreeK.E. (1998) “Fiscal policy outcomes and electoral accountability in American states”, American Political Science Review, 92(4)759–774.
16.
MarloweJ. (2004) The Local Fund Balance: Explanations and Implications (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
17.
MarloweJ. (2005) “Fiscal slack and counter-cyclical expenditure stabilization: A first look at the local level”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 25(3)48–72.
18.
MarloweJ. (2011) “Beyond five percent: Optimal municipal slack resources”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 3(4)93–108.
19.
MasseyJ. and TyerC.B. (1990) “Local government fund balances; How much is enough?”, South Carolina Forum: A Review of Public Affairs in South Carolina, 1 (April-June): 40–46.
20.
MenifieldC.E. (2009) The Basics of Public Budgeting and Financial Management: A Handbook for Academics and Practitioners, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
21.
NavinJ.C. and NavinL.J. (1997) “The optimal size of countercyclical budget stabilization funds: A case study of Ohio”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 17(2)114–127.
22.
PhillipsJ.N. (2012) Understanding State Savings: Three Essays on State Rainy Day Funds (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.
23.
PlumperT. and TroegerV. (2007) “Efficient estimation of time-invariant and rarely changing variables in finite sample panel analyses with unit fixed effects”, Political Analysis, 15(2)124–139.
24.
RoseS. (2008) “The political manipulation of US state rainy day funds under rules versus discretion”, State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 8(2)150–176.
25.
SheltonM.TyerC., and HembreeH. (2000) “Local government reserve funds and fund balance; some applications of business concepts”, Municipal Finance Journal, 21(1)1–18.
26.
SobelR.S. and HolcombeR.G. (1996) “The impact of state rainy day funds in easing state fiscal crises during the 1990–1991 recession”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 16(3)28–48.
27.
StewartL.M. (2009) “Examining factors that impact Mississippi counties’ unreserved fund balance during relative resource abundance and relative resource scarcity”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 29(4)45–73.
28.
StewartL.M. (2011) “Governmental influence on unreserved fund balances for Mississippi counties”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 23(4)478–506.
29.
WagnerG.A. (2003) “Are state budget stabilization funds only the illusion of savings?: Evidence from stationary panel data”, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 16(3)28–48.
30.
WagnerG.A. and SobelR.S. (2006) “State budget stabilization fund adoption: Preparing for the next recession or circumventing fiscal constraints?”, Public Choice, 126(1)177–199.
31.
WangW. and HouY. (2012) “Do local governments save and spend across budget cycles? Evidence from North Carolina”, American Review of Public Administration, 42(2)152–169.
32.
WolkoffM. (1987) “An Evaluation of Municipal Rainy Day Funds”, Public Budgeting & Finance, 7(2)52–63.
