IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedbcw/06-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Yesim Yilmaz
  • Sonya Hoo
  • Matthew Nagowski
  • Kim Rueben
  • Robert Tannenwald

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Yesim Yilmaz & Sonya Hoo & Matthew Nagowski & Kim Rueben & Robert Tannenwald, 2006. "Measuring fiscal disparities across the U. S. states: a representative revenue system/representative expenditure system approach, fiscal year 2002," New England Public Policy Center Working Paper 06-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedbcw:06-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/neppc/wp/2006/neppcwp0602.htm
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/neppc/wp/2006/neppcwp0602.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Robert Tannenwald & Nick Turner, 2004. "Interstate fiscal disparity in state fiscal year 1999," Public Policy Discussion Paper 04-9, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Margaret Chitiga-Mabugu & Nara Monkam, 2013. "Assessing Fiscal Capacity at the Local Government Level in South Africa," Working Papers 201376, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    2. Owyang, Michael T. & Zubairy, Sarah, 2013. "Who benefits from increased government spending? A state-level analysis," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 445-464.
    3. repec:spr:empeco:v:53:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s00181-016-1123-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Timothy J. Bartik, 2009. "How Policymakers Should Deal with the Delayed Benefits of Early Childhood Programs," Upjohn Working Papers and Journal Articles 09-150, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Local government ; Local finance ; State finance ; Taxation;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedbcw:06-2. 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: (Catherine Spozio). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/frbbous.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.