State budgets and the business cycle: implications for the federal balanced budgets amendment debate
Balanced budgets and proponents often use the experience of the states with balanced budget restrictions as an argument in favor of a federal balanced budget amendment. However, the state experience is not directly relevant to the federal government. State restriction are more lenient than those considered at the federal level, and many of the techniques used by the states to blame their budgets over the business cycle are not available to the federal government.
Volume (Year): (1999)
Issue (Month): Q III ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.chicagofed.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/publications/print_publication_order_form.cfm Email: |
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.:
- James M. Poterba, 1993.
"State Responses to Fiscal Crisis: The Effects of Budgetary Institutionsand Politics,"
NBER Working Papers
4375, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Poterba, James M, 1994. "State Responses to Fiscal Crises: The Effects of Budgetary Institutions and Politics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(4), pages 799-821, August.
- Leslie McGranahan, 1999. "Welfare reform and state budgets," Chicago Fed Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, issue Jan.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedhep:y:1999:i:qiii:p:3-17:n:v.23no.3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bernie Flores)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.