No description available.

Thesis. 1977. M.C.P.--Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning. / MICROFICHE COPY AVAILABLE IN ARCHIVES AND ROTCH. / Bibliography : leaves 170-172. / by George W. Leung. / M.C.P.

Fiscal stress is an important and recurring problem that states face. Research to date on state fiscal stress involves, predominantly, cross-sectional and case study analyses and does not address the effectiveness of state responses. Many of these studies use different definitions and measures of fiscal stress compounding the difficulty of comparing fiscal stress findings. The present research effort adds to the fiscal stress literature by (1) clarifying the meaning of fiscal stress in the state context, (2) developing a measure of fiscal stress that operationalizes this meaning and is comparable across units, and 3) using this measure analyzes patterns in and the effectiveness of state responses. Fiscal stress is measured using four indexes: budget, cash, long-run, service-level. Eleven financial indicators, calculated using data from state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), are used to create these indexes for all fifty states for the years 2002-2009. Descriptive analysis compares state fiscal stress levels (grouped into low, moderate, and high fiscal stress by cluster analysis) to state economic growth rates, state responses, and institutional factors yielding several findings. First, states do not use an incremental or punctuated equilibrium strategy in responding to fiscal stress; nor do their responses follow the pattern predicted by Cutback Management theory. Second, institutional factors affect both the levels of fiscal stress and state responses to fiscal stress. Regression analysis supports and extends these findings. First, short-term responses of expenditure cuts, tax increases, and rainy day fund use do not affect state fiscal stress levels. Second, these responses have long-term effects on fiscal stress levels. A major implication of this research is that there is very little states can do in the short-term to reduce fiscal stress. However, by balancing expenditures and revenues states can set themselves up to weather the next economic downturn with lower levels of fiscal stress.

Fiscal stress is an important and recurring problem that states face. Research to date on state fiscal stress involves, predominantly, cross-sectional and case study analyses and does not address the effectiveness of state responses. Many of these studies use different definitions and measures of fiscal stress compounding the difficulty of comparing fiscal stress findings. The present research effort adds to the fiscal stress literature by (1) clarifying the meaning of fiscal stress in the state context, (2) developing a measure of fiscal stress that operationalizes this meaning and is comparable across units, and 3) using this measure analyzes patterns in and the effectiveness of state responses. Fiscal stress is measured using four indexes: budget, cash, long-run, service-level. Eleven financial indicators, calculated using data from state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), are used to create these indexes for all fifty states for the years 2002-2009. Descriptive analysis compares state fiscal stress levels (grouped into low, moderate, and high fiscal stress by cluster analysis) to state economic growth rates, state responses, and institutional factors yielding several findings. First, states do not use an incremental or punctuated equilibrium strategy in responding to fiscal stress; nor do their responses follow the pattern predicted by Cutback Management theory. Second, institutional factors affect both the levels of fiscal stress and state responses to fiscal stress. Regression analysis supports and extends these findings. First, short-term responses of expenditure cuts, tax increases, and rainy day fund use do not affect state fiscal stress levels. Second, these responses have long-term effects on fiscal stress levels. A major implication of this research is that there is very little states can do in the short-term to reduce fiscal stress. However, by balancing expenditures and revenues states can set themselves up to weather the next economic downturn with lower levels of fiscal stress.

No description available.

Fiscal stress is an important and recurring problem that states face. Research to date on state fiscal stress involves, predominantly, cross-sectional and case study analyses and does not address the effectiveness of state responses. Many of these studies use different definitions and measures of fiscal stress compounding the difficulty of comparing fiscal stress findings. The present research effort adds to the fiscal stress literature by (1) clarifying the meaning of fiscal stress in the state context, (2) developing a measure of fiscal stress that operationalizes this meaning and is comparable across units, and 3) using this measure analyzes patterns in and the effectiveness of state responses. Fiscal stress is measured using four indexes: budget, cash, long-run, service-level. Eleven financial indicators, calculated using data from state Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), are used to create these indexes for all fifty states for the years 2002-2009. Descriptive analysis compares state fiscal stress levels (grouped into low, moderate, and high fiscal stress by cluster analysis) to state economic growth rates, state responses, and institutional factors yielding several findings. First, states do not use an incremental or punctuated equilibrium strategy in responding to fiscal stress; nor do their responses follow the pattern predicted by Cutback Management theory. Second, institutional factors affect both the levels of fiscal stress and state responses to fiscal stress. Regression analysis supports and extends these findings. First, short-term responses of expenditure cuts, tax increases, and rainy day fund use do not affect state fiscal stress levels. Second, these responses have long-term effects on fiscal stress levels. A major implication of this research is that there is very little states can do in the short-term to reduce fiscal stress. However, by balancing expenditures and revenues states can set themselves up to weather the next economic downturn with lower levels of fiscal stress.

This dissertation examines the effects of tax and expenditure limitations (TELs) stringency and its interaction with revenue diversity and the council-manager form of government on municipal general fund expenditure. TELs are explicit rules that states impose to reduce local government spending. TELs stringency varies from state to state, leading to difficulties in assessing their impact across the nation. This dissertation proposes a new means for measuring the stringency of TELs imposed on local governments. Factor analysis is utilized, and then factor scores are calculated to identify degrees of TELs stringency. This study contends that higher levels of TELs stringency are associated with lower local government spending. However, the effectiveness of TELs is dependent on revenue diversity and the form of government. This study suggests that both revenue diversity and the council-manager form of government mitigate the impacts of TELs stringency on local government spending. Panel data from 2007 to 2011 from 1,508 municipalities are utilized. This study finds that higher levels of TELs stringency are associated with lower levels of municipal general fund expenditures per capita. However, TELs stringency is effective only when revenue diversity is low and when cities have a form of government other than council-manager. These results are generally consistent with the theory presented in this dissertation.