This paper reports on a series of case studies in which the consequences are examined of the major buildup in federal grants to urban areas over the 1970s in eleven major US cities. Conventional economic models of the impact of this buildup are argued to rely overmuch on assumptions about the manner in which local officials perceive and structure choices, neglecting important program features and ignoring variations across place and time in the structure of utility functions and in the types of behavior seen as likely to achieve a desired outcome. The case studies suggest that local uses of federal funds are structured by the uncertainty in both level and form of grant receipts and by a propensity for risk-aversion behavior on the part of local general-purpose officials.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACIR, 1978Federal Stabilization Policy: The Role of State and Local Governments Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
2.
AntonT, 1983Federal Aid to Detroit (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
3.
BradfordDOatesW, 1971, “The analysis of revenue sharing in a new approach to collective fiscal decisions”Quarterly Journal of Economics85415–439
4.
CourantPGramlichERubinfeldD, 1979, “The stimulative effects of intergovernmental grants: Or why money sticks where it hits” in Fiscal Federalism Eds MieszkowskiPOaklandW, (The Urban Institute, Washington, DC) pp 5–21
5.
DommelPRNathanRLiebschutzSFWrightsonMT, and Associates, 1979Decentralizing Community Development (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
6.
DoT, 1978, “Report on the impact of the economic stimulus package on 48 large urban governments”Department of the Treasury, 15 th and Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20222
7.
FossettJW, 1983Federal Aid to Big Cities: The Politics of Dependence (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
8.
FossettJW, 1984Federal Grants and Urban Politics: A Comparative Study of Processes and Outcomes PhD thesis; copy available from University Microfilms, Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
9.
FossettJWNathanRP, 1981, “The prospects for urban revival” in Urban Government Finances: Emerging Trends Ed. BahlR, (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA) pp 63–105
10.
FriedmanM, 1953Essays in Positive Economics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
11.
GramlichEN, 1979, “Intergovernmental grants: A review of the literature” in The Political Economy of Fiscal Federalism Ed. OatesW, (D C Heath, Lexington, MA) pp 219–239
12.
HallJS, 1979, “The impact of federal grants on the City of Phoenix” report MEL 79-25(3), US Departments of Labor and Commerce, Washington, DC; copy available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
13.
JonesB, 1984, “Speculative city budgeting and federal grants” paper presented at annual meeting of American Political Science Association; copy available from Department of Political Science, Texas A and M University, College Station, TX 77843
14.
KatzJ, 1980, “The impact of federal grants on the City of Boston” report MEL 80-15, US Departments of Labor and Commerce, Washington, DC; copy available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
15.
LiebschutzSF, 1984Federal Aid to Rochester (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
16.
MacManusSA, 1983Federal Aid to Houston (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
17.
McGuireM, 1973, “Notes on grants-in-aid and economic interactions among governments”Canadian Journal of Economics6207–221
18.
MergitA, 1981, “Fiscal dependency of American cities”Public Budgeting and Finance120–30
19.
NiskanenW, 1971Bureaucracy and Representative Government (Aldine, Chicago, IL)
20.
OatesW, 1979, “Lump sum grants have price effects” in Fiscal Federalism Eds MieszkowskiPOaklandW, (The Urban Institute, Washington, DC) pp 23–30
21.
OrlebekeCJ, 1983Federal Aid to Chicago (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
22.
RawlinsVLNathanRP, 1982, “The field network evaluation studies of intergovernmental grants: A contrast with the orthodox economic approach”AEA Papers and Proceedings7298–102
23.
RossR, 1980, “The impact of federal grants on the City of Los Angeles” report MEL 80-21, US Departments of Labor and Commerce, Washington, DC; copy available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
24.
SchmandtHJWendelGDTomeyEA, 1983Federal Aid to St Louis (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
25.
SchroederL, 1985, “Effects of business cycles on city finances—insiders' views” OP-93, Metropolitan Studies Program, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13210
26.
SimonH, 1985, “Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science”American Political Science Review79293–304
27.
SteibSBRittenoureRL, 1980, “The impact of federal grants on the City of Tulsa” report MEL 80-05, US Departments of Labor and Commerce, Washington, DC; copy available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
28.
ThompkinsRFTwohigPFitzpatrickJLajoieSCokeJCoughlinAElliottC, 1981, “The impact of federal grants on the City of Cleveland” report MEL 81-19, US Departments of Labor and Commerce, Washington, DC; copy available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
29.
US Bureau of the Census, 1980City Government Finances in 1977–78 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
30.
WildeJA, 1971, “Grants-in-aid: The analytics of design and response”National Tax Journal24573–584
