Search results

This study investigates the relationship between different levels of state balanced budget laws and state borrowing costs. Using federal guidelines for state balanced budget law classifications, this author inserted dichotomous variables in an empirical model of state borrowing costs. Ordinary Least Squares Regression is utilized to determine which balanced budget laws are recognized in state interest costs. The results indicate a significant relationship between the most restrictive levels of balanced budget laws and state borrowing costs. The strongest balanced budget laws are associated with lower interest costs while the weakest budget laws are associated with higher costs. It appears that taxpayers in states with weaker balanced budget amendments may not be as protected against excessive government growth as those in states with the most stringent balancing requirements.

The purpose of this article is to challenge the balanced budget practices of U.S. state governments and offer alternatives that may lead to better fiscal, economic and policy outcomes. We contend that the norm of balance may be leading U.S. states to make fiscal decisions that result in less-than-ideal outcomes, especially during economic downturns.

This is a normative article. We examine the scholarly evidence regarding balanced budget practices to assess the appropriateness of balanced budget norms. We also examine the fiscal rules followed by Eurozone countries to draw potential lessons for U.S. states.

We conclude that state governments should move away from strict norms of budget balance and seek more flexible approaches. We suggest that instead of following strict rules and norms of balance, U.S. states should consider implementing escape clauses, debt and deficit ceilings, and fiscal councils. We also suggest that the Federal Reserve be open to lending directly to states during fiscal crises to ensure that states have access to affordable credit.

The balanced budget norm has become ingrained in U.S. state budgeting practices, so much so that public officials and scholars alike rarely question it. The novel contribution of our article is to question this practice in a systematic way and propose alternative approaches.

This paper examines how voters' initiatives used in 24 states affect state budget balance. The author first uses a qualitative approach to investigate the extent to which ballot initiatives are used and identifies the initiatives that have had significant impacts on state revenues and expenditures. The review shows that the impact of initiatives differs from a state to state. The heavy initiative user states have experienced substantial impact on their budgets. Second, as their impact on state budget is particularly significant during economic downturn, a linear regression analysis is performed to examine the relationship between the use of initiatives and state budget balance measured in terms of the state budget gap as percentage of FY 2010 general fund. The regression analysis shows that the number of expenditure-induced initiatives have a statistically significant effect on state budget gap, while revenue-restrained measures (e.g. number of tax-limiting measures and the use of super majority or popular vote to approve tax increase) only marginally affect the FY 2010 budget gap.

Since the 1978 adoption of Proposition 13 California’s fiscal conditions have steadily deteriorated. This article questions whether this fiscal deterioration is due to a lack of budget affordability or of institutional ineffectiveness. In examining the institutional ineffectiveness of California’s budget system the article focuses on: (1) general revenue mobilization, (2) expenditure mandates in education, and (3) legislative party divisions in face of supermajority requirements. To this end, the article develops a pre-post regression model that analyzes the factors that influenced the state budget balances. The article finds that California’s deteriorating fiscal conditions are strongly influenced by the declining effective tax rate. The study also finds that increases in education spending are a statistically significant factor, but finds mixed support for the argument that political divisions drive California’s budget deficits.

Much of the budgeting literature has focused on the questions of “how” budgets are prepared and “how” budget decisions are made. Minimal attention has been directed to “how” budgets are executed. This paper focuses on this issue with special emphasis on state government budget execution processes. The paper provides an overview of the similarities and differences of state and federal budget execution follows by an assessment of how state balanced budget requirements place special responsibilities on state budget offices to monitor “within” budget execution year expenditures and revenues. Actions which may be taken to insure that state budgets are balanced are discussed. These actions are enumerated and analyzed in terms of legislative and executive branch authority and responsibility shifts.

Reviewing the development of budgeting in America in the twentieth century, this article assesses where public budgeting is as it approaches the twenty-first century. Five periods are identified in American budgeting, drawing upon the work of Schick and Rubin: control, management, planning, prioritization and accountability. Budgeting in the 1990s is described as characterized by accountability and a “new” performance budgeting emphasis. The authors argue that the budget reform movement is still alive and well in American government, with local governments once more leading the way.

This article aims to examine empirically the relationship between budget periodicity and expenditure volatility in state governments. Using a large panel dataset for fifty states over the years 1960-2012, after controlling for institutional, economic, and political factors, we find general expenditure of biennial states has been significantly less volatile than that of annual states. The finding suggests that a choice between annual and biennial budget period can emerge as a feasible and effective countercyclical strategy to overcome fiscal difficulties in the short run and promote fiscal stability in the long run.

There has been a great deal of research regarding the success and impact of state performance-based budgeting with findings ranging from hopeful to critical. Previous findings have also indicated that the success and impact of implementation have varied across the states. The practitioners' varied views of successful performance implementation are likely linked to their varied views of the purpose of performance implementation. We survey state executive budget officers regarding performance-based budget goals, implementation successes, and obstacles. Our findings suggest that program accountability as a goal, rather than budget allocation, makes a stronger foundation for determining performance-based budget success.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of changes to the Arkansas budget process brought about when the people of Arkansas voted to move from a biennial to an annual budget period in 2008. The paper describes the legislative changes necessary for annual budget review and explores the impact of annual budget review on revenue forecasting, supplemental appropriations, special sessions, legislative staff workload, executive branch oversight and state spending. This research assesses legislative perceptions of annual budget review across several factors including knowledge of the state budget, ability to check the powers of the governor and overall efficacy of annual budget review.

This exploratory research uses interview data from the Legislative Fiscal Director and data from an online survey of Arkansas state legislators. The interview and survey data were supplemented by an analysis of documents produced by legislative staff regarding supplemental appropriations, special sessions and state general revenue.

The Legislative Fiscal Director interview indicates that the change in budget period had little impact on revenue forecasting, special sessions and state government spending, with the exception that supplemental appropriations for Big 6 agencies increased in a statistically significant way following the advent of the fiscal session. The legislative survey finds that the change in budget period is viewed positively by Arkansas legislators. Most legislators indicated that they prefer annual budget review to biennial budget review.

Because of the exploratory approach, the research results may lack generalizability.

This paper surveys legislators on the efficacy of annual budget review which has seldom been done in previous research.

This article evaluates quantitatively the impact of four common budget approaches on disaggregated United States state spending data in the 1990s. Pooled time series cross sectional data of the 50 states is used to test the impact of incremental, program, zero-based, and performance-based budgeting on the dependent variables state total and functional expenditures. The results demonstrated that there was support for all of these approaches in terms of their impact on state budget outputs. These findings imply that budget decision-making should focus more on a system-wide approach, which takes into account many of the characteristics of these rival models, rather than exclusively focusing on each one singly. A possible suggestion is a hybrid form of budgeting, which is a combination of incremental and rational approaches.