Книги по разным темам
Pages: | 1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 19 | 25.1
26.6
1962
19.1
1.5
25.3
26.8
1963
19.3
1.5
26.1
27.6
1964
20.2
2.1
25.7
27.8
1965
20.4
2.2
26.4
28.7
1966
21.5
2.3
28.3
30.6
1967
22.5
2.2
29.4
31.5
1968
22.5
3.9
30.2
34.1
1969
22.3
3.1
30.8
33.9
1970
21.9
4.3
31.3
35.6
1971
23.4
4.7
32.3
37.0
1972
24.1
5.7
31.0
36.7
1973
24.4
7.5
30.9
38.4
1974
22.7
7.7
31.6
39.3
1975
23.3
8.3
31.8
40.1
1976
23.2
14.0
29.9
43.9
1977
22.8
13.5
29.2
42.7
1978
22.6
12.9
29.2
42.1
1979
22.3
12.6
30.4
42.9
1980
22.5
10.8
30.9
41.7
1981
22.0
9.1
31.0
40.1
1982
20.1
0.7
32.6
33.2
1983
19.5
6.9
29.1
36.0
1984
19.4
6.2
28.9
35.1
1985
19.5
5.6
29.4
35.0
1986
19.5
5.2
29.5
34.7
1987
18.7
3.4
29.7
33.1
1988
18.8
3.7
29.8
33.5
1989
18.7
3.5
30.2
33.7
1990
19.0
4.9
29.1
34.0
1991
20.7
4.1
29.6
33.7
1992
21.7
4.1
30.5
34.6
1993
22.3
3.9
30.5
34.4
1994
23.1
3.7
30.2
33.8
1995
22.7
4.1
30.6
34.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, StatisticalAbstract of the United States and the Tax Foundation, Facts and Figures onGovernment Finance.
Beginning with the column showing transfersfrom federal to state governments, we see that there have not been any sizeable changes in theimportance of federal transfers as a source of state revenues. Federaltransfers constitute roughly 20% of state revenues, with only slight variationsaround that percentage in the period from 1960 to 1995. There has, however, been greatervariation in the importanceof federal transfers in local government revenues. In particular, therewas a large increase in intergovernmental grant programs in the 1960s and 1970sunder the Johnson and Nixon administrations. Significantly, many of theseprograms specified direct transfers from the federal government to localgovernments, thereby by-passing state governments altogether. This trendcame to an end in the 1980s under the Reagan administration and, today, directfederal transfers to local governments represent only a small share of local governmentrevenues. This small share is misleading, however, because if we examine theimportance of state transfers to local governments, we recognize that a significantproportion of federal transfers to state governments are passed on to localgovernments. By themid-1990s, local governments relied on state and federal transfers for roughly35% of their revenues. This percentage has increased gradually overtime.
Vertical FiscalImbalances
Vertical fiscal balance occurs whensubnational governments are able to raise sufficient revenues to finance theirexpenditures. This allows them full autonomy and accountability to their citizens.In most federations vertical fiscal imbalances are the norm and are dealt withthrough intergovernmental transfers from higher levels of government to lowerlevels. While this compromises lower-level governments’ autonomy and accountability, there are arguments infavour of assigning greater revenue-raising abilities to higher levels ofgovernment. These arguments are described in Section C.
Table B4 reports figures for verticalfiscal imbalances in the United States without intergovernmentaltransfers. In Table B4, the vertical fiscal imbalances for the federalgovernment are measured as the difference between expenditures net of transfersto lower-level governments and revenues as a percentage of expenditures net oftransfers. The vertical fiscal imbalances for the states are measured asthe difference between expenditures net of transfers to local governments and own-sourcerevenues as a proportion of expenditures net of transfers. In the lastcolumn, the vertical fiscal imbalances for the local governments are thedifference between expenditures and own-source revenues as a proportion ofexpenditures.
Vertical fiscal imbalances excludingtransfers measure both the extent of deficit financing and the extent that ownexpenditure needs exceed own-source revenues. Since deficit financing ismuch more accessible to the federal government in the United States, thedeficit financing component of the vertical fiscal imbalance is evident for thefederal government in Table B4.25 In particular, weobserve a sharp turn-around in the early 1980s when the federal governmentbegan to run very large budget deficits. During this period, the verticalfiscal imbalance went from negative to positive, reflecting the large deficitsof the federal government.
Table B4: Vertical Imbalances BetweenFederal, State, and Local Governments[(Expenditures-Revenues)/Expenditures]*100
Year | Federal | State | Local | Federal | State | Local |
1960 | -10.5 | -18.8 | 30.3 | -2.6 | -3.4 | 4.5 |
1961 | -3.6 | -13.4 | 30.4 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 5.2 |
1962 | -0.7 | -18.5 | 30.2 | 6.2 | -2.5 | 4.6 |
1963 | -3.9 | -18.2 | 29.8 | 3.6 | -2.5 | 3.0 |
1964 | -4.4 | -19.9 | 29.6 | 4.0 | -5.3 | 2.6 |
1965 | -5.7 | -22.5 | 30.8 | 3.2 | -6.1 | 3.0 |
1966 | -8.6 | -26.7 | 31.9 | 1.3 | -7.6 | 1.9 |
1967 | -6.3 | -18.0 | 33.0 | 3.3 | -2.9 | 2.2 |
1968 | 0.7 | -21.2 | 34.3 | 10.4 | -3.8 | 0.4 Pages: | 1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 19 | Книги по разным темам
|