Measuring Revenue Capacity and Effort of County Governments

A Case Study of Arkansas

Bibliographic Data

ID6366630
AuthorsRonald John Hy, Cindy Boland, Richard Hopper, Richard Sims (0000-0001-6524-7248)
Year1993
Volume53
Issue3
Pages220-220
Publication date1993-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePublic Administration Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0033-3352 • E-ISSN: 1540-6210
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.2307/3110126
OpenAlexW2328175303
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited1

How can local governments further identify underutilized sources? Authors Hy, Boland, Hopper, and Sims demonstrate a technique called revenue capacity/effort in application to counties in Arkansas. The analysis examines properly taxes and 'combined lesser discretionary revenues, which include a variety offees and other charges. It indicates that Arkansas counties (and the state as a whole) generally underutilize tax capacity. A variety offactors limits greater effort to raise additional revenues. The authors discuss how this model can be useful in shaping intergovernmental transfers. In the late 1960s, the national government set in motion the idea that it should reduce the transfer of funds to state and local governments. Although the idea of reducing the level of spending for state and local governments did not immediately manifest itself, it was subsequently implemented with varying degrees of attainment over the years. In 1981, for example, Ronald Reagan was able to convince Congress to reduce spending for state and local governments (Conlan and Walker, 1983; Waugh and Hy 1988, p. 28.) These and other federal cutbacks ushered in a period of what Shannon (1987, p. 34) and later Gold and Ritchie (1991, p. 34) called fend for yourself federalism

Business · County government · Political science · Revenue · Finance · Fiscal Policies and Political Economy · Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth · Local Government Finance and Decentralization · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub