Skip to main content

Part of the book series: ZEI Studies in European Economics and Law ((ZEIS,volume 2))

Abstract

The fifty U.S. states employ a wide variety of fiscal institutions designed to constrain state tax and expenditure policy. Some, such as balanced budget requirements and supermajority rules for tax increases, have been proposed for the federal government. Others, such as budgetary line-item-veto authority have even been enacted by Congress, but have since been ruled unconstitutional at the federal level. Advocates typically point to the states as examples from which federal policy makers can learn, but to date there is very little systematic evidence on the effectiveness of these state institutions, either individually or in concert. Furthermore, what evidence exists struggles to deal with two difficult empirical problems: the endogenous nature of the fiscal institutions, and their interactions with one another. This paper describes six of the most important state-level fiscal institutions, presents existing and new evidence regarding their consequences, and discusses empirical strategies for handling their complex endogenous and interactive character.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams, Burton and William Dougan (1986) “The Effects of Constitutional Restraints on Government Spending”, Public Choice 49 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) (1987) Fiscal Discipline in the Federal System: Experience of the States. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) (1995) Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, Alberto and Tamim Bayoumi (1996) “The Costs and Benefits of Fiscal Rules: Evidence from U.S. States”, NBER Working Paper #5614, June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alm, James and Mark Evers (1991) “The Item Veto and State Government Expenditures”, Public Choice, 68 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alt, James E. and Robert C. Lowry (1994) “Divided Government, Fiscal Institutions, and Budget Deficits: Evidence from the States”, American Political Science Review 88(4) 811–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baicker, Katherine (1997) “Government Decision-Making and the Incidence of Federal Mandates” working paper Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernheim, Douglas (1989) “A Neoclassical Perspective on Budget Deficits”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 3(2) 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, Henning and Robert P. Inman (1996) “Balanced Budget Rules and Public Deficits: Evidence from the U.S. States” NBER Working Paper #5533, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briffault, Richard (1996) Balancing Acts: The Reality Behind State Balanced Budget Requirements. Washington DC: Twentieth Century Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burtless, Gary and Wayne Vroman (1984). “The Performance of Unemployment Insurance Since 1979”, Industrial Relations Research Association Series (December) cited in Gramlich (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, John and David Schap (1990) “Line-Item Veto: Where is thy Sting?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 4 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chari, V, Larry Jones and Ramon Marimon (1997) “The Economics of Split-Ticket Voting in Representative Democracies”. American Economic Review 87 957–976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearden, James and Thomas Husted (1993) “Do Governors Get What They Want?: an Alternative Examination of the Line-Item Veto”. Public Choice 77 707–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elder, Harold (1992) “Exploring the Tax Revolt: an Analysis of the Effects of State Tax and Expenditure Limitation Laws”. Public Finance Quarterly 20 47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Ronald (1996) State and Local Public Finance. Chicago: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Accounting Office (GAO) (1993) Balanced Budget Requirements: State Experiences and Implications for the Federal Government. GAO/AFMD-93-58BR, March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, Steven D (1981) “The Struggles of 1981: Budget Actions in the States”, State Legislatures. July/August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, Steven D. (1984) “Contingency Measures and Fiscal Limitations: The Real World Significance of Some Recent State Budget Innovations”. National Tax Journal 37(3) 421–432, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramlich, Edward M. (1987) “Subnational Fiscal Policy”, in John M. Quigley (ed.) Perspectives on Local Public Finance and Public Policy. JAI Press: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, Randall and Russell Sobel (1996) “The Impact of Rainy Day Funds in Easing State Fiscal Crises During the 1990-1991 Recession”, Public Budgeting and Finance. 16(3) 28–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtz-Eakin, Douglas (1988) “The Line Item Veto and Public Sector Budgets: Evidence from the States”, Journal of Public Economics 36 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, Brian (1998)a) “Supermajority Voting Requirements for Tax Increases: Evidence from the States”, working paper, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, Brian (1998)b) “Fiscal Effects of Unfunded Mandates: Evidence from State Reimbursement Requirements”, working paper, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Arik (1998) “Balanced Budgets and Business Cycles: Evidence from U.S. States”, National Tax Journal, December, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, Steven T. (1985) “Two Views of the Geographic Distribution of Unemployment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics (February).

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsusaka, John (1995) “Fiscal Effects of Direct Legislation: Evidence from the Last 30 Years”, Journal of Political Economy 103 587–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) (1989) Budget Processes of the States. Washington DC: NASBO.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) (1998) Budget Processes of the States. Washington DC: NASBO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates, Wallace E. (1972) Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poterba, James M. (1994) “State Responses to Fiscal Crises: The Effects of Budgetary Institutions and Politics”. Journal of Political Economy 102(4) 799–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poterba, James M. (1996) “Budget Institutions and Fiscal Policy in the U.S. States”, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 86(2) 395–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regional Science Research Institute (RSRI) (1981) “State Input-Output Models for Transportation Impact Analysis”, Mimeo cited in Gramlich (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, Christina D. (1986) “Is the Stabilization of the Postwar Economy a Figment of the Data?” American Economic Review 76(3) 314–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueben, Kim (1995) “Tax Limitations and Government Growth: the Effect of State Tax and Expenditure Limits on State and Local Government”, working paper, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauch, Rolf (1998) “The Strategic Structure of the Budget Process — Evidence from the U.S. States”, working paper, University of Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple, Judy (1998) “State Revenue and Supermajority Limitations, Unobserved State Effects, and State Revenue Growth”, working paper, Northern Illinois University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Rolf R. Strauch Jürgen von Hagen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Knight, B., Levinson, A. (2000). Fiscal Institutions in U.S. States. In: Strauch, R.R., von Hagen, J. (eds) Institutions, Politics and Fiscal Policy. ZEI Studies in European Economics and Law, vol 2. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4555-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4555-2_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7056-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-4555-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics