Decentralization reflects a global trend to increase the responsiveness of state and local governments to economic forces, but it raises the challenge of how to secure redistributive goals. Theoretically, as the equalizing impact of federal aid declines under devolution, we expect subnational state-level government policy to become more important, and geographic diversity in local governments' efforts to raise revenue to increase. In this paper we explore the impact of state fiscal centralization and intergovernmental aid on local revenue effort with the aid of Census of Governments data for county areas from 1987 for the Mid-Atlantic and East North Central region of the United States, with particular attention paid to rural counties. The 1987 period was chosen because it is the first year in which state policy trends diverged from federal decentralization trends and both state aid and state centralization increased while federal aid to localities continued to decline. Using a neural-network approach, we explore the spatially differentiated impact of state policy and find complementary responses in effort among some localities and substitution responses among others. Classification-tree analysis of this diversity suggests that decentralization and the competitive government it promotes are likely to exacerbate inequality among local governments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltshulerAMorrillWWolmanWMitchellF (Eds), 1999Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America (National Academy Press, Washington, DC)
2.
AnselinL, 1988Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models (Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA)
3.
BennettR, 1990, “Decentralization, intergovernmental relations and markets: towards a post-welfare agenda?”, in Decentralization, Local Governments and Markets: Towards a Post-Welfare Agenda Ed. BennettR (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 1–26
4.
BishopC M, 1995Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
5.
BradburyKLaddHPerraultMReschouskyAYingerJ, 1984, “State aid to offset fiscal disparities across communities”National Tax Journal37 (2) 151–170
6.
BrennerN, 1999, “Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urban governance in the European Union”Urban Studies36431–451
7.
BriemanLFriedmanJOlshenRStoneC, 1984Classification and Regression Trees (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA)
8.
ConlanT, 1998From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty Five Years of Intergovernmental Reform (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC)
9.
DeweesSLobaoLSwansonL, 2003, “Local economic development in an age of devolution: the question of rural localities”Rural Sociology68182–206
10.
DonahueJ D, 1997Disunited States (Basic Books, New York)
11.
GarsonG D, 1991, “A comparison of neural network and expert system algorithms with common multivariate procedures for analysis of social science data”Social Science Computer Review9299–434
12.
GarsonG D, 1998Neural Networks: An Introductory Guide to Social Scientists (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)
13.
GoldS, 1995The Fiscal Crisis of the States: Lessons for the Future (Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC)
14.
GrantDWallaceM, 1994, “The political economy of manufacturing growth and decline across the American states, 1970–1985”Social Forces7333–63
15.
HwangJ T GDingA A, 1997, “Prediction intervals for artificial neural networks”Journal of the American Statistical Association92748–757
16.
JessopR, 1994, “Post-Fordism and the state”, in Post-Fordism: A Reader Ed. AminA (Blackwell, Cambridge, MA) pp 251–279
17.
JohnsonK MPelisseroJ PHolienD BMalyM T, 1995, “Local government fiscal burden in nonmetropolitan America”Rural Sociology60381–398
18.
KastensT LFeatherstoneA MBiereA W, 1995, “A neural networks primer for agricultural economists”Agricultural Finance Review5554–73
19.
KatzM, 2001The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare State (Metropolitan Books, New York)
20.
LaddH FYingerJ, 1989America's Ailing Cities: Fiscal Health and the Design of Urban Policy (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
21.
LaddH FYingerJ, 1994, “The case for equalizing aid”National Tax Journal77211–224
22.
LawrenceJ, 1994Introduction to Neural Networks: Design, Theory, and Applications (California Scientific Software, Nevada City, CA)
23.
LefevbreH, 1974La production de l'espace (Anthropos, Paris); The Production of Space translated in 1991 by Nicholson-SmithDonald (Blackwell, Cambridge, MA)
24.
LeGalesP, 1998, “Regulations and governance in European ciies”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research47482–506
25.
LobaoLRulliJBrownL A, 1999, “Macro-level theory and local-level inequality: industrial structure, institutional arrangements, and the political economy of redistribution, 1970 and 1990”Annals of the Association of American Geographers89571–601
26.
MacLeodG, 2001, “New regionalism reconsidered: globalization and the remaking of political economic space”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research50804–829
27.
MenckenC, 2000, “Federal spending and economic growth in Appalachian counties”Rural Sociology65126–147
28.
MeravigliaC, 1996, “Models of representation of social mobility and inequality systems: a neural network approach”Quality and Quantity30231–252
29.
MollenkopfJ H, 1983The Contested City (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
30.
NathanR ALagoJ R, 1990, “Intergovernmental fiscal roles and relations”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science50936–47
31.
O'ConnorJ, 1973The Fiscal Crisis of the State (St Martin's Press, New York)
PetersonP, 1981City Limits (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
34.
PowersE, 1999, “Block granting welfare: fiscal impact on the states”, OP 23, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC
35.
Prud'hommeR, 1995, “The dangers of decentralization”The World Bank Research Observer10201–214
36.
ReederRJansenA, 1995, “Rural government—poor counties, 1962–1987”, RR 88, Rural Development, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
37.
SchneiderM, 1989The Competitive City: The Political Economy of Suburbia (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA)
38.
StineW F, 1994, “Is local government revenue response to federal aid symmetrical? Evidence from Pennsylvania county governments in an era of entrenchment”National Tax Journal47799–816
39.
SwyngedouwE, 1997, “Neither global nor local: ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale”, in Spaces of Globalization Ed. CoxK (Guilford Press, New York) pp 137–166
40.
TieboutC M, 1956, “A pure theory of local expenditures”Journal of Political Economy64416–424
41.
TomekW G, 1985, “Limits on price analysis”American Journal of Agricultural Economics67905–915
42.
VeauxR DSchumiJSchweinsbergJUngarL H, 1998, “Prediction intervals for neural networks via nonlinear regression”Technometrics40273–282
43.
WangD QChukovaSLaiC C, 2004, “On the relationship between regression analysis and mathematical programming”Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences8 (2) 131–140
44.
WarnerM E, 2001, “State policy under devolution: redistribution and centralization”National Tax Journal54541–556
45.
WierT GPhohaV V, 2002, “Neural networks and regional science modeling: a survey of techniques for complex spatial analysis”The Review of Regional Studies32309–324
46.
WoelfelJ, 1993, “Artificial neural networks in policy research: a current assessment”Journal of Communication4363–80
47.
WyckoffP, 1985, “Revenue sharing and local public expenditures: old questions, new answers”Economic Review Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland second quarter, 13–28
48.
ZampelliE M, 1986, “Resource fungibility, the flypaper effect and the expenditure impact of grants-in-aid”The Review of Economics and Statistics6833–41
49.
ZiliakS TMcCloskeyD N, 2004, “Size matters: the standard error of regressions in the American Economic Review”Journal of Socio-Economic33 (special issue on Statistical Significance) 527–546
