Revenue Sharing

For those concerned with the opportunities of citizen participation in local politics and with the propor tion of federal assistance monies allocated to social service needs, general revenue sharing often is viewed as a double threat. Not only does the revenue sharing legislation fail to require any specific proportion of the returned money to be spent on social needs, but it also fails to include any provisions for the mandatory participation of local citizens in the expenditure of the funds. Thus, revenue sharing, and the entire concept of "New Federalism," marks a dramatic and potentially profound change from the categorical grant programs of the 1960s. This article reviews the citizen participation and social service issues of revenue sharing and examines the available empirical evidence concerning these matters. It finds that, while the fears of some revenue sharing critics cannot be dismissed lightly, the program has not led to a complete demise of participation opportunities, nor can it be said to have ignored totally social service concerns. It suggests that those interested in receiving greater proportions of revenue sharing funds organize and compete with other groups at the local level. In the final analysis, the most important and lasting contribution of revenue sharing may be the stimulation and encouragement of increased interest and involvement of previously ignored groups in the urban decision making process

Business · Economics · Legislation · Political science · Politics · Public economics · Public relations · Revenue · Revenue assurance · Revenue model · Revenue sharing · Service (business · Finance · Law · Local Government Finance and Decentralization · Marketing