Changing Revenue and Expenditure Structure and the Reliance on User Charges and Fees in American Counties,1972-2002

Abstract

This article examines changing revenue and expenditure structures in a panel of 2,698 American counties during the past 30 years (1972-2002) at 5-year intervals. It also investigates factors affecting the degree of reliance on user charges in counties. The findings show that property taxes and total taxes as a percentage of total own source revenue began trending downward, whereas sales tax, user charges, and other taxes trended upward since 1977. The downward trend of property taxes and total taxes increased rapidly in the wake of tax and expenditure limitation (TEL) movements, which started in the late 1970s. With respect to the county expenditure structure and the growing role of counties as service delivery agents, the relative share of spending on traditional county services decreased slightly, whereas the share of municipal-type (local services) and regional-type services in general increased slightly. The findings also show that the presence of binding local TELs and the presence of state-level TELs led to an increase in the share of user charges and fees for traditionally charge-financed services. The findings also show that a modernized county structure led to an increase in the degree of reliance on user charges in counties.

Keywords

user charge reliance county expenditure structure county revenue structure

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baltagi, B.H. ( 1995). Econometric analysis of panel data. New York, NY: Wiley.

Benton, J.E. ( 2003a). Counties as service delivery agents. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Benton, J.E. ( 2003b). County government structure and county revenue policy: What’s the connection? State and Local Government Review , 35, 79-89.

Bierhanzl, E.J. ( 1999). Incentives for efficiency: User charges and municipal spending. Journal of Public Finance Choice, XVII, 19-34.

Bierhanzl, E.J. , & Downing, P.B. ( 1998). User charges and bureaucratic inefficiency. Atlantic Economic Journal, 26, 175-190. Bierhanzl, E.J. , & Downing, P.B. ( 2004). Use charges and special districts. In J. R. Aronson & E. Schwartz (Eds.). Management policies in local government finance (pp. 315-351). Washington, DC: International City/ County Management Association.

Bland, R. ( 2005). A revenue guide for local government (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: International City/ County Management Association.

Gujarati, D.N. ( 2003). Basic econometrics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Hoene, C. ( 2004). Fiscal structure and the post-proposition 13 fiscal regime in California’s cities. Public Budgeting and Finance , 24(4), 51-72.

International City/County Management Association. ( 2002). Local government parks and recreation services. Washington, DC: Author.

10.

Joyce, P.G. , & Mullins, D.R. ( 1991). The changing fiscal structure of the state and local public sector: The impact of tax and expenditure limitations. Public Administration Review, 51, 240-253.

11.

Lang, R.E. , Blakely, E.J. , & Gough, M.Z. ( 2005). Keys to the new metropolis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 381-391.

12.

Marando, V.L. , & Baker, C.D. ( 1993). Metropolitan counties and urbanization. In D. R. Bemand (Ed.), County governments in an era of change (pp. 71-87). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

13.

Mikesell, J.L. ( 1993). City finances, city futures. Columbus : Ohio Municipal League Educational and Research Fund .

14.

Mikesell, J.L. ( 2007). Fiscal administration (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

15.

Mullins, D.R. ( 2003). Popular processes and the transformation of state and local government finance. In D. L. Sjoquist (Ed.), State and local finances under pressure (pp. 95-162). Cheltenham , England: Edward Elgar.

16.

Mullins, D.R. , & Joyce, P.G. ( 1996). Tax and expenditure limitations and state and local fiscal structure: An empirical assessment. Public Budgeting and Finance , 16, 75-101.

17.

Netzer, D. ( 1992). Differences in reliance on user charges by American state and local governments. Public Finance Quarterly, 20, 499-511.

18.

Rubin, L.S. , & Fagan, K. ( 1992). The state and local government sector: Long-term trends and recent fiscal pressures. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 78, 892-901.

19.

Salant, T.J. ( 1988). County home rule: Perspectives for decision making. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

20.

Salant, T.J. ( 1993). Shifting roles in county-state relations. In D. R. Bemand (Ed.), County governments in an era of change (pp 107-121). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

21.

Schneider, M. , & Park, K.O. ( 1989). Metropolitan counties as service delivery agents: The still forgotten government. Public Administration Review, 49(July/August), 70-75.

22.

Shadbegian, R.J. ( 1999). The effect of tax and expenditure limitations on the revenue structure of local government, 1962-1987. National Tax Journal, 52, 221-237.

23.

Skidmore, M. ( 1999). Tax and expenditure limitations and the fiscal relationships between state and local governments. Public Choice, 99, 77-102.

24.

Tannenwald, R. ( 1990). Taking charge: Should New England increase its reliance on user charges? New England Economic Review, January/February, 56-75.

25.

Wooldridge, J.M. ( 2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data . Cambridge: MIT Press.

26.

Yuan, B. , Cordes, J.J. , Burnori, D. , & Bell, M. ( 2007). Tax and expenditure limitations and their effects on local public finances (Working Paper). Washington, DC: George Washington Institute of Public Policy.