This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Measuring fiscal disparities across the U. S. states: a representative revenue system/representative expenditure system approach, fiscal year 2002

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Yesim Yilmaz
Sonya Hoo
Matthew Nagowski
Kim Rueben
Robert Tannenwald

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

States and their local governments vary both in their needs to provide basic public services and in their abilities to raise revenues to pay for those services. A joint study by the Tax Policy Center and the New England Policy Center at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston uses the Representative Revenue System (RRS) and the Representative Expenditure System (RES) frameworks to quantify these disparities across states by comparing each state’s revenue capacity, revenue effort, and necessary expenditures to the average capacity, effort, and need in states across the country for fiscal year 2002. ; The fiscal capacity of a state is the state’s revenue capacity relative to its expenditure need. A state with low fiscal capacity has a relatively small revenue base, a relatively high need for expenditures, or—as is often the case—a combination of both. ; The New England and Mid-Atlantic states tend to have high revenue capacity and low expenditure needs compared to the national average. Thus, states in these two regions tend to have high fiscal capacity, or a relatively high capability to cover their expenditure needs using own resources. South Central states, on the other hand, have low fiscal capacity—that is, a low level of revenue-raising capacity given what it would cost to provide a standard set of public services to their citizens. ; Little relation exists between the amount of federal aid received by states and their fiscal capacity; federal money is not primarily distributed to offset differences in the ability to raise revenues or provide services. Given the current level of federal funds allocated to state and local governments, 91 percent of the gap between revenue capacity and expenditure need across the states could be covered if federal funds were reallocated.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/neppc/wp/2006/neppcwp0602.htm
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: no
File URL: http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/neppc/wp/2006/neppcwp0602.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in its series New England Public Policy Center Working Paper with number 06-2.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fip:fedbcw:06-2

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210
Phone: 617-973-3397
Fax: 617-973-4221
Email:
Web page: http://www.bos.frb.org/
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Email:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Diane Rosenberger).

Related research
Keywords: Local government ; Local finance ; State finance ; Taxation;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Robert Tannenwald & Nicholas Turner, 2004. "Interstate fiscal disparity in state fiscal year 1999," Public Policy Discussion Paper 04-9, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. [Downloadable!]
  2. Robert Tannenwald, 1998. "Come the devolution, will states be able to respond?," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue May, pages 53-73. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Timothy J. Bartik, 2009. "How Policymakers Should Deal with the Delayed Benefits of Early Childhood Programs," Staff Working Papers 09-150, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc stands for Research Papers in Economics.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-16.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.