Devolution to the subnational state and local level has increased reliance on locally raised revenue to provide basic social, infrastructural, and economic development services. We conduct multilevel regression models of local government fiscal effort (locally raised revenue normalized by population and income) of all county areas in the continental United States for the period 2002–2007. Spatial regression and geographically weighted regression are used to understand differential spatial effects of subnational state policies on local fiscal effort across counties. In contrast to conventional fiscal federalism theory, which argues local government is the developmental state, we find increased spatial inequality as expenditures driven by local need may crowd out expenditures related to growth and development. Nonmetropolitan counties and older suburbs exhibit higher local effort, while suburban outlying areas have lower effort. State rescaling requires more attention to policies of the subnational state, particularly state aid and state centralization of fiscal responsibility to ensure that both redistributive and developmental expenditures can be maintained under devolution.
BentonJE (2002) Counties as Service Delivery Agents: Changing Expectations and Roles, Westport, CT: Praeger.
2.
BentonJE (2005) An assessment of research on American counties. Public Administration Review65(4): 462–474.
3.
Brenner N (2004) Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western europe, 1960--2000. Review of International Political Economy 11(3): 447--488.
4.
BrunsdonCFotheringhamASCharltonM (1996) Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geographical Analysis28(4): 281–298.
ChristophersonSMichieJTylerP (2010) Regional resilience: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society3(1): 3–10.
7.
DellerSC (2010) Spatial variations in the role of microenterprises in economic growth. Review of Regional Studies40(1): 71–97.
8.
DeweesSLobaoLSwansonLE (2003) Local economic development in an age of devolution: the question of rural localities. Rural Sociology68(2): 182–206.
9.
EzcurraRPascualP (2008) Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: evidence from several European Union countries. Environment and Planning A40(5): 1185–1201.
10.
EzcurraRRodríguez-PoseA (2013) Political decentralization, economic growth and regional disparities in the OECD. Regional Studies47(3): 388–401.
11.
FisherPSDitslerE (2003) Taxes and State Economic Growth: The Myths and the Reality, Mount Vernon, IA: Iowa Policy Project.
12.
FotheringhamASBrunsdonCCharltonME (2002) Geographically Weighted Regression: The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships, Chichester: Wiley.
13.
HaughwoutAInmanR (2002) Should suburbs help their central cities?Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs2002(1): 45–94.
14.
JohnsonKMPelisseroJPHolianDB (1995) Local government fiscal burden in nonmetropolitan America. Rural Sociology60(3): 381–398.
15.
KatzMB (2001) The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare State, New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
KyriacouAPMuinelo-GalloLRoca-SagalésO (2015) Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: the importance of good governance. Papers in Regional Science94(1): 89–107.
18.
LaddHFYingerJ (1994) The case for equalizing aid. National Tax Journal47(1): 211–224.
19.
LessmannC (2009) Fiscal decentralization and regional disparity: evidence from cross-section and panel data. Environment and Planning A41: 2455–2473.
20.
LessmannC (2012) Regional inequality and decentralization: an empirical analysis. Environment and Planning A44(6): 1363–1388.
21.
LichterDTJohnsonKM (2007) The changing spatial concentration of America’s rural poor population. Rural Sociology72(3): 331–358.
22.
LobaoLMAduaL (2011) State rescaling and local governments’ austerity policies across the USA, 2001–2008. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society4(3): 419–435.
23.
LobaoLMKraybillD (2005) The emerging roles of county governments in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas: findings from a national survey. Economic Development Quarterly19(3): 245–259.
24.
LobaoLMAduaLHooksG (2014) Privatization, business attraction, and social services across the United States: local governments’ use of market-oriented, neoliberal policies in the post-2000 period. Social Problems61(4): 644–672.
25.
LucyWHPhillipsDL (2000) Confronting Suburban Decline: Strategic Planning for Metropolitan Renewal, Washington, DC: Island Press.
26.
PartridgeMDRickmanDS (2007) Persistent pockets of extreme American poverty and job growth: is there a place-based policy role?Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics32(1): 201–224.
27.
PartridgeMDRickmanDSAliK (2008) The geographic diversity of U.S. nonmetropolitan growth dynamics: a geographically weighted regression approach. Land Economics84(2): 241–266.
28.
PeckJ (2012) Austerity urbanism: American cities under extreme economy. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action16(6): 626–655.
29.
PeckJ (2014) Pushing austerity: state failure, municipal bankruptcy and the crises of fiscal federalism in the USA. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society7(1): 17–44.
30.
PetersonPE (1981) City Limits, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Prud’hommeR (1995) On the dangers of decentralization. World Bank Research Observer10: 201–220.
32.
Rodríguez-PoseABwireA (2004) The economic (in)efficiency of devolution. Environment & Planning A36(11): 1907–1928.
33.
Rodríguez-PoseAEzcurraR (2010) Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Economic Geography10(5): 619–644.
34.
Rodríguez-PoseAEzcurraR (2011) Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries. Journal of Economic Geography11(4): 619–643.
35.
Rodríguez-PoseAGillN (2004) Is there a global link between regional disparities and devolution?Environment & Planning A36(12): 2097–2118.
36.
Rodríguez-PoseATijmstraS A RBwireA (2009) Fiscal decentralisation, efficiency, and growth. Environment & Planning A41(9): 2041–2062.
37.
Sharp JS and Parisi DM (2003) Devolution: who is responsible for rural America? In Brown D and Swanson L (eds) Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-first Century. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 353–362.
WarnerME (2001) State policy under devolution: redistribution and centralization. National Tax Journal54(3): 541–556.
40.
WarnerME (2006) Market-based governance and the challenge for rural governments: U.S. trends. Social Policy and Administration: An International Journal of Policy and Research40(6): 612–631.
41.
WarnerMECliftonJ (2014) Marketisation, public services and the city: the potential for polanyian counter movements. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society7(1): 45–61.
42.
WarnerMEPrattJE (2005) Spatial diversity in local government revenue effort under decentralization: a neural-network approach. Environment and Planning C, Government & Policy23(5): 657–678.
43.
WarnerMEZhengL (2013) Business incentive adoption in the recession. Economic Development Quarterly27(2): 90–101.
44.
WeberR (2010) Selling city futures: the financialization of urban redevelopment policy. Economic Geography86(3): 251–274.
45.
XuYWarnerME (2015) Understanding employment growth in the recession: the geographic diversity of state rescaling. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society8(2): 359–377.
