This paper incorporates ten measures consisting of four financial condition dimensions in cash, budget, long-run, and service-level solvencies into the application of an evaluation approach-a Fuzzy Rule Based System (FRBS)-to the evaluation of U.S. state governments’ overall financial condition during and after the Great Recession of 2008. It introduces a methodology for combining the disparate measures of the system into an overall evaluation of financial condition for state governments. We identify that ten states are in good financial condition, while the majority are in a financial condition that falls somewhere between fair and poor. The evaluation results indicate that some states can do at least a fair job in financial performance; however, there is substantial room for improvement in future financial performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmmarS., WrightR., & SeldenS. (2000). Ranking state finanical management: A multi-level fuzzy rule based system. Decision Sciences, 31 (2): 449–481.
2.
AmmarS., DuncombeW., & WrightR. (2001). Evaluating capital management: A new Approach. Public Budgeting & Finance, 21 (4): 47–69.
3.
AmmarS., DuncombeW., HouY., & WrightR. (2001). Evaluating city finanical management using FRBS. Public Budgeting & Finance, 21 (4), 70–90.
4.
AmmarS., DuncombeW., HouY., JumpB., & WrightR. (2001). Using fuzzy rule-based systems to evaluate overal finanical performance of governments: An enhancement to the bond rating process. Public Budgeting & Finance, 21 (4), 91–110.
5.
AmmarS., DuncombeW., JumpB., & WrightR. (2004). Constructing a fuzzy-knowledge-based-system: An application for assessing the financial condition of public schools. Expert Systems with Applications, 27, 349–364.
6.
ArnettS. (2014). State fiscal condition: Ranking the 50 States. Working Paper. Mercatus Center of George Mason University.
7.
BarrettK., & GreeneR. (1999) Grading the states. Governing, 12, 17–90.
8.
BaiYing, & WangDali. (2006) Fundamentals of fuzzy logic control-fuzzy sets, fuzzy rules and defuzzifications. In BaiYing, HanqiZhuang, and DaliWang (eds.) Advanced Fuzzy Logic Technologies in Industrial Applications. London: Springer. pp. 18–36.
9.
BerneR & SchrammR. (1986). The financial analysis of governments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10.
BerneR. (1992). The relationship between financial reporting and the measurment of fianncial condition. Norwalk, CT: Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
11.
ChaneyB. A., MeadD. M., & SchermannK. R. (2002). The new governmental financial reporting model: What it means for analyzing government financial condition. Journal of Government Financial Management, 51 (1), 26–31.
12.
ChenH.T (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
ClarkBenjamin. (2015). Evaluating the validity and reliability of the financial condition index for local governments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 35 (2), 66–88.
14.
CristofoliDaniela, & MarkovicJosip. (2015). How to make public networks really work: A qualitative comparative analysis. Public Administration, 94 (1): 89–110.
15.
DohSoogwan. (2014). Social capital, economic development, and the quality of government: How interaction between social capital and economic development affects the quality of government. Public Administration, 92 (1), 104–124.
16.
DouglasD.W., & GaddieR.K. (2002). State rainy day funds and fiscal crises: Rainy day funds and the 1990–1991 recession revisited. Public Budgeting & Finance, 22 (1), 19–30.
17.
DuncombeW., JumpBernard, AmmarS., & WrightRonald. (2003). Developing a financial condition indicator system for New York school districts. Condition Report, education finance research consortium.
18.
FinklerS. (2004). Financial management for public, health, and not-for-profit organizations. (2rd ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (2003). Statement of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board No. 34: Basic Financial Statements-and Management's Discussion and Analysis-for State and Local Governments. Norwalk, CT: Author.
20.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (2004). Statement of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board No. 44: Economic condition reporting: the statistical section-An amendment of NCGA statement 1. Norwalk, CT: Author.
21.
GrovesS.M., GodseyW. M., & ShulmanM.A. (1981). Financial indicators for local government. Public Budgeting & Finance, 1 (2), 5–19.
22.
GroveS. M., GodseyM. W., and NollenbergerR. K. (2003). Evaluating financial condition: A handbook for local government. (4 ed.). Washington, D.C.: ICMA.
23.
HendrickR. (2004). Assessing and measuring the fiscal health of local governments: Focus on Chicago suburban municipalities. Urban Affairs Review, 40 (1), 78–114.
24.
Van Der HeijdenJeroen. (2015). The role of government in voluntary environmental programmes: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Public Administration, 93 (3), 576–592.
25.
HeikkilaTanya. (2004). Instiuttional boundaries and common-pool resource management: A comparative analysis of water management programs in California. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23 (1), 97–117.
26.
HonadleB.W., CostaJ.M., and CiglerB.A (2004). Fiscal health for local government: An introduction to concepts, pracical analysis and strategies. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
27.
HouY. (2003). What stablizes state general fund expenditures in downturn years-budget stablization fund or general fund unreserved undesignated balance. Public Budgeting & Finance, 23 (3), 64–91.
28.
HouY. (2004). Budget stablization fund: Structural features of the enabling legislation and balance levels. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24 (3), 38–64.
29.
JacobB., and HendrickR. (2012). Assessing the financial condition of local governments: What is financial condition and how is it measured? In LevineH., JusticeJ. & ScorsoneE. (Eds.), Handbook of local government fiscal health. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
30.
JimenezBenedict. (2009). Fiscal stress and the allocation of expenditure responsibilities between state and local governments: An exploratory study. State and Local Government Review, 41 (2), 81–94.
31.
JohnsonCraig L., KiokoSharon N., and HildrethW. B. (2012). Government-wide Financial Statements and Credit Risk. Public Budgeting & Finance, 32 (1): 80–104.
32.
KamnikarJudith A., KamnikarEdward G., and DealK.H. (2006). Assessing a state's financial condition. Journal of Government Financial Management, (Fall): 30–36.
33.
KlohaP., WeissertC. S., & KleineR. (2005). Developing and testing a composite model to predict local fiscal distress. Public Administration Review, 65 (3), 313–23.
34.
KiokoSharon N. (2013). Reporting on the financial condition of the states: 2002–2010. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 25 (1), 165–198.
35.
MeadD.M. (2001). An analyst's guide to government financial statements. Norwalk, CT: Government Accounting Standards Board.
36.
OliffP., MaiC. & PalaciosV. (2012). States continue to feel recession's impact. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
37.
PaganoM., & HoeneC. (2002). Most cities' fiscal conditions decline for first time in a decade. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
38.
PoterbaJ. (1994). State responses to fiscal crisis: The effects of budgetary institutions and politics. Journal of Political Economy, 102 (4), 799–821.
39.
RaginCharles. (1989). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
40.
RaginCharles C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
RaginCharles. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
42.
RubinMarilyn Marks, & WilloughbyKatherine. 2009. Financial management grades for the states: A prospective use. Public Budgeting & Finance, 29 (1), 49–67.
43.
SeldenS., JacobsonW., AmmarS., & WrightR. (2000). A new approach to assessing performance of state human resource management systems: A multi-level fuzzy rule-based system. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20 (3).
44.
SohlShannon, PeddleM.T., ThurmaierK., WoodC. H., & KuhnG. (2009). Measuring the financial position of municipalities: Number do not speak for themselves. Public Budgeting & Finance, 29 (3), 74–86.
45.
ThomannEva. (2015). Is output performance all about the resources? A Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of street-level bureaucrats in Switzerland. Public Administration, 93 (1), 177–194.
46.
TreadwellW.A. (1995). Fuzzy set theory movement in the social science. Public Administration Review, 55 (1), 91–98.
47.
WangX., DennisL., & TuY. (2007). Measuring financial condition: A study of U.S. states. Public Budgeting & Finance, 27 (2), 1–21.
48.
WangX & LiouK. T. (2009). Assessing the change in financial condition: An analysis of panel data from U.S. States. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 21 (2), 165–197.
49.
WangWeijie. (2015). Exploring the determinants of network effectiveness: The case of neighborhood governance networks in Beijing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26 (3), 375–388.
50.
YagerR. R., & FilevD. (1993). On the issue of defuzzification and selection based on a fuzzy set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 55, 255–271.
51.
ZadehLofti A. (1987). Fuzzy sets. In YagersR., OvchinnikovS., TongR., and NguyenH. (Eds.), Fuzzy sets and applications: Selected Papers. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
