The Relationship between Fiscal Stress and Patterns of State Budgeting Strategies Used in Cutback Management in the Last Two U.S. Recessions

Abstract

This research examines patterns of budget responses used in cutback management by all fifty states in response to budget shortfalls and fiscal stress. It uses NASABO data on state budget responses for all fifty states during 2002–2013, including the last two recessions, to address research questions concerning which response strategies are used, timing of responses in relation to fiscal stress, and differences in budget response strategies depending on severity of fiscal stress.

Based on analysis of frequency data, states used more responses, and increasingly more severe responses, over the course of recessionary periods and in the years immediately afterward as the lagged impact of fiscal stress increased in severity. This pattern in state responses also reflects a time lag in the number and severity of state responses to fiscal stress in recessionary periods. the pattern of state responses observed over the two recessions provides some evidence that the initial responses to fiscal stress generally involve the use of less severe responses with more severe responses added when fiscal stress increases.

Bivariate contingency analysis, Chi-Square Test of significance, and Measures of Association are used to evaluate the significance and strength of the relationship between the use of various budget strategies and levels of fiscal stress based on Low, Medium, or High levels of Fiscal Stress. Fiscal Stress is defined in terms of budget solvency using interquartile ranges of percent expenditure change between fiscal years to represent budget shortfall for the states in each year. the findings from Chi Square tests and the measures of association for the relationship between individual budget responses and fiscal stress over the period indicate that the majority of state budget responses are moderately strongly associated with levels of fiscal stress.

This research defined a variable that aggregates patterns of state budget response in terms of severity. the Budget Response Severity variable is categorized as Low, Medium or High in severity based on the highest severity level of budget responses used by a state in a given year. Using bivariate contingency analysis, Chi-Square Test of Significance, and Measures of Association, Budget Response Severity was found to be moderately strongly associated with the severity of fiscal stress. the study concludes that the patterns of state budget response strategies used over the period are consistent with a phased-in response model to fiscal stress with more severe budget responses used by states as levels of fiscal stress increase. the findings contribute to further testing and confirmation of cutback management's systematic administrative response model to fiscal pressure on budgetary systems.

Keywords

cutback management budget shortfalls state budgeting fiscal stress budget strategies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnett

Sarah B.

(2012) Fiscal Stress in the U.S. States: An Analysis of Measures and Responses, Public Management and Policy Dissertations. Paper 38.

Bartle

J. R.

(1996) “Coping with cutbacks: city responses to aid cuts in New York State”, State and Local Government Review, 28(1):38–48.

Behn

(1985) “Cutback budgeting”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(2):155–177.

Berne

, & Steifel

(1993) “Cutback budgeting: The long-term consequences”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12(4):664–684.

Bowling

C. J.

& Burke

B. F.

(2006) “Levine's legacy: comparing state administrator strategies to treat fiscal stress, 1984 and 2004”. Paper prepared for the 7th State Politics and Policy Conference, Austin, TX.

Bozeman

, & Straussman

J. D.

(1982) “Shrinking budgets and the shrinkage of budget theory”, Public Administration Review, 42(6):514.

Caiden

(1983) “The politics of subtraction”, in Schick

(ed) Making economic policy in congress, Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.

Dougherty

M. J.

& Klase

K. A.

(2009) “Fiscal retrenchment in state budgeting: revisiting cutback management in a new era”, International Journal of Public Administration, 32(7):593–619.

Downs

G. W.

, & Rocke

D. M.

(1984) “Theories of budgetary decisionmaking and revenue decline”, Policy Sciences, 16(1):329–347.

10.

Gold

S. D.

(1992) “The federal role in state fiscal stress”, Publius, 22(3):33–47.

11.

Gold

S. D.

(1995) The fiscal crisis of the states: lessons for the future. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

12.

Groves

S. M.

, Godsey

W. M.

, & Shulman

M. A.

(1981) “Financial indicators for local government”, Public Budgeting & Finance, Summer: 5–19.

13.

Hou

(2003) “What stabilizes state general fund expenditures in downturn years: budget stabilization fund or general fund unreserved undesignated balance?”, Public Budgeting & Finance, 23 (3):64–91.

14.

Hou

(2004) “Budget stabilization fund: structural features of the enabling legislation and balance levels”, Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(3):38–64.

15.

Jordan

M. M.

(2003) “Punctuations and agendas: a new look at local government budget expenditures”, Journal of Policy and Management, 22(3):345–360.

16.

Klase

K. A.

(2011) “The intersection of flexible budgeting and responses of selected states to recent economic recessions,” Public Finance and Management, 11(2):197–230.

17.

Levine

C. H.

(1978) “Organizational decline and cutback management”, Public Administration Review, 38(4)316–325.

18.

Levine

C. H.

(1979) “More on cutback management: Hard questions for hard times”, Public Administration Review, 39(2)179–183.

19.

Levine

C. H.

(1980) Managing Fiscal Stress: the Crisis in the Public Sector, Chatham: Chatham House.

20.

Levine

C. H.

, Rubin

I. S.

& Wolohojian

(1981) The Politics of Retrenchment: How Local Governments Manage Fiscal Stress, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

21.

Lewis

G. B.

(1984) “Municipal expenditures through thick and thin”, Publius, 4(2):31–39.

22.

McGranaham

(2002) “Unprepared for boom or bust: understanding the current state fiscal crisis”, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

23.

National Association of Budget Officers (NASBO), and National Governors Association (2001–2013) The fiscal survey of states: an update of state fiscal conditions, Washington, DC: NASBO.

24.

Pagano

(2002) “Municipal capital spending during the 'boom”’, Public Budgeting and Finance, 22(2):1–20.

25.

Pammer

W. J.

(1990) Managing Fiscal Strain in Major American Cities: Understanding Retrenchment in the Public Sector. New York: Greenwood Press.

26.

Poterba

J. M.

(1994) “State responses to fiscal crises: the effects of budgetary institutions and politics”, The Journal of Political Economy 102 (4):799–821.

27.

Rubin

M. M.

& Willoughby

K. G.

(2009) “State budget balancing strategies: Riding into the future on lessons learned from the past”, Paper prepared for the 5TAD Conference, Washington, D.C.

28.

Rickards

R. C.

(1984) “How spending patterns of cities change: budgetary incrementalism reexamined”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 4(1): 56–74.

29.

Schick

(1983) “Incremental budgeting in a decremental age”, Policy Sciences 16(1):1–25.

30.

Scorsone

E. A.

& Plerhoples

. (2010) “Fiscal stress and cutback management amongst state and local governments: what have we learned and what remains to be learned?”, State & Local Government Review 42 (2):176–187.

31.

Wohlman

& Davis

(1980) “Local government strategies to cope with fiscal pressure”, in: Levine

C. H.

and Rubin

, (eds), Fiscal Stress and Public Policy, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.