IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedbpr/2016_001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why is state and local government capital spending lower in the New England states than in other U.S. states?

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald C. Fisher
  • Riley Sullivan

Abstract

This report explores several hypotheses as to why state and local governments in New England have been spending less on capital investment than the national average, on a normalized basis. Census data show that state and local capital spending in all six New England states was well below the national average between 2000 and 2012, whether measured on a per capita basis, as a share of personal income, or as a share of state and local government spending. To explore why this is so, this report considers how capital spending has changed over time, how capital spending differs by state and across spending category, and the quality and quantity of capital stock in New England?s states. The report also considers the relationship between debt issuance and capital spending. The authors find that economic, social, and political characteristics used in previous research are insufficient to fully explain the observed normalized levels of state and local capital spending in the New England states relative to their rates in the national average of all U.S. states. The report does suggest that the relatively large role of state government in New England and government officials? concerns about debt levels may have contributed to lower capital spending.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald C. Fisher & Riley Sullivan, 2016. "Why is state and local government capital spending lower in the New England states than in other U.S. states?," New England Public Policy Center Policy Reports 16-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedbpr:2016_001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/new-england-public-policy-center-policy-report/2016/why-is-state-local-government-capital-spending-lower-in-new-england-states-than-in-other-us-states.aspx
    File Function: Summary
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/Workingpapers/PDF/economic/neppc/policyreports/2016/neppcpr1601.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gramlich, Edward M, 1994. "Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1176-1196, September.
    2. Poterba, James M., 1995. "Capital budgets, borrowing rules, and state capital spending," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 165-187, February.
    3. Silva, Fabio & Sonstelie, Jon, 1995. "Did Serrano Cause a Decline in School Spending," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 48(2), pages 199-215, June.
    4. Silva, Fabio & Sonstelie, Jon, 1995. "Did Serrano Cause a Decline in School Spending," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 48(2), pages 199-215, June.
    5. Ronald C. Fisher, 1997. "Effects of state and local public services on economic development," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Mar, pages 53-82.
    6. Ronald C. Fisher & Robert W. Wassmer, 2015. "An Analysis of State–Local Government Capital Expenditure During the 2000s[We present]," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 3-28, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blankenau, William & Skidmore, Mark, 2002. "The Relationship Between Education Finance Reform and Tax and Expenditure Limitations," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-18.
    2. James Alm & Trey Dronyk‐Trosper, 2021. "What drives road infrastructure spending?," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 20-49, December.
    3. Ronald C. Fisher & Robert W. Wassmer, 2015. "An Analysis of State–Local Government Capital Expenditure During the 2000s[We present]," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 3-28, March.
    4. Thomas Downes, 2003. "School Finance Reform and School Quality: Lessons from Vermont," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0309, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    5. Ferreira, Fernando, 2010. "You can take it with you: Proposition 13 tax benefits, residential mobility, and willingness to pay for housing amenities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 661-673, October.
    6. Peterson, Steven K. & Jessup, Eric L., 2008. "Evaluating the Relationship Between Transportation Infrastructure and Economic Activity: Evidence from Washington State," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 47(2).
    7. James Alm & Robert D. Buschman & David L. Sjoquist, 0. "Citizen "Trust" as an Explanation of State Education Funding to Local School Districts," PPublius: The Journal of Federalism, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 636-661.
    8. Goodspeed, Timothy J., 1998. "The Relationship Between State Income Taxes and Local Property Taxes: Education Finance in New Jersey," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 51(2), pages 219-238, June.
    9. Thomas J. Nechyba, 2006. "Alternative education finance strategies," Regional Economic Development, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Mar, pages 7-27.
    10. Eric J. Brunner & Stephen L. Ross, 2009. "Is the Median Voter Decisive? Evidence of 'Ends Against the Middle' From Referenda Voting Patterns," Working papers 2009-02, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised May 2010.
    11. Fernández, Raquel & Rogerson, Richard, 1999. "Education finance reform and investment in human capital: lessons from California," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 327-350, December.
    12. Mildred E. Warner, 2012. "Does Local Government Size Matter? Privatization and Hybrid Systems of Local Service Delivery," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1212, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    13. Fabrizio Balassone & Daniele Franco, 2000. "Public investment, the Stability Pact and the ‘golden rule’," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(2), pages 207-229, June.
    14. Robert Manwaring & Steven Sheffrin, 1997. "Litigation, School Finance Reform, and Aggregate Educational Spending," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 4(2), pages 107-127, May.
    15. Raquel Fernandez & Richard Rogerson, 1997. "Education finance reform: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 67-84.
    16. Marlow, Michael L., 1999. "Spending, school structure, and public education quality. Evidence from California," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 89-106, February.
    17. Thomas J. Nechyba, 1996. "Public School Finance in a General Equilibrium Tiebout World: Equalization Programs, Peer Effects and Private School Vouchers," NBER Working Papers 5642, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Mildred E. Warner, 2013. "Does local government size matter? Privatization and hybrid systems of local service delivery," Chapters, in: Santiago Lago-Peñas & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez (ed.), The Challenge of Local Government Size, chapter 11, pages 263-288, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2001. "All School Finance Equalizations are Not Created Equal," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(4), pages 1189-1231.
    20. Norman Baldwin & Stephen Borrelli, 2008. "Education and economic growth in the United States: cross-national applications for an intra-national path analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(3), pages 183-204, September.

    More about this item

    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:fedbpr:2016_001. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Spozio (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbbous.html .

    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.