Revenue Sharing and Governmental Reform
Even though the major purposes of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 were to provide financial relief, restore intergovernmental fiscal balance, and decentralize decision making, general revenue sharing is far from neutral with respect to other fiscal, structural and functional reform...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1975-05, Vol.419 (1), p.50-62 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 62 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 50 |
container_title | The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |
container_volume | 419 |
creator | Stenberg, Carl W. |
description | Even though the major purposes of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 were to provide financial relief, restore intergovernmental fiscal balance, and decentralize decision making, general revenue sharing is far from neutral with respect to other fiscal, structural and functional reforms. Some elements of the program stimulate improvements at the local and regional levels, while others support the jurisdictional status quo. There have been positive effects on citizen participation in the budgetary process, the equalization of fiscal disparities, and interlocal cooperation. The program has been less successful in encouraging more vigorous state revenue-raising efforts and in targeting funds to local governments having the greatest needs. It has often worked at cross-purposes with regional planning and review processes, as well as with organizations responsible for their conduct. The pending renewal of general revenue sharing will open a new chapter in the debate over governmental reform. Exclusion of limited purpose jurisdictions and removal of the 20 percent floor and 145 percent ceiling on local entitlements will likely receive particular attention as ways of providing more assistance to larger counties and municipalities. Yet, differences among the reformers themselves, probable political support for continuation of the program without basic changes, and philosophical resistance to attaching strings suggest that closer ties between general revenue sharing and government reform will be difficult to develop. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/000271627541900106 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1297290479</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1041639</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_000271627541900106</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1041639</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-7988a03e67ee0ce7f926aa6d16181e77528b2d72ead1c299d735da750ef783e63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFLw0AQhRdRMFb_gHgIePAUO7Ob7GSPUrQKBaHqOazJpDY0Sd1NC_77JsRDQXAuc_m-9-AJcY1wj0g0BQBJqCUlMRoABH0iAkwSGSkVm1MRDEA0EOfiwvsKhkMTiLsl77nZcfj2Zd26WYW2KcJ5u2fX1Nx0dhMuuWxdfSnOSrvxfPX7J-Lj6fF99hwtXucvs4dFlCtNXUQmTS0o1sQMOVNppLZWF6gxRSZKZPopC5JsC8ylMQWppLCUAJeU9pqaiNsxd-va7x37LqvanWv6ygylIWkgJtNTcqRy13rvuMy2bl1b95MhZMMg2d9Bemk6St6u-Cj2P-NmNCrfte6oI0atjDoANm5nLw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1297290479</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Revenue Sharing and Governmental Reform</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Stenberg, Carl W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Stenberg, Carl W.</creatorcontrib><description>Even though the major purposes of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 were to provide financial relief, restore intergovernmental fiscal balance, and decentralize decision making, general revenue sharing is far from neutral with respect to other fiscal, structural and functional reforms. Some elements of the program stimulate improvements at the local and regional levels, while others support the jurisdictional status quo. There have been positive effects on citizen participation in the budgetary process, the equalization of fiscal disparities, and interlocal cooperation. The program has been less successful in encouraging more vigorous state revenue-raising efforts and in targeting funds to local governments having the greatest needs. It has often worked at cross-purposes with regional planning and review processes, as well as with organizations responsible for their conduct. The pending renewal of general revenue sharing will open a new chapter in the debate over governmental reform. Exclusion of limited purpose jurisdictions and removal of the 20 percent floor and 145 percent ceiling on local entitlements will likely receive particular attention as ways of providing more assistance to larger counties and municipalities. Yet, differences among the reformers themselves, probable political support for continuation of the program without basic changes, and philosophical resistance to attaching strings suggest that closer ties between general revenue sharing and government reform will be difficult to develop.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-7162</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3349</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/000271627541900106</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: American Academy of Political and Social Science</publisher><subject>Cities ; Evaluation of General and Specific Policy Impact ; Government ; Government reform ; Government relations ; Income taxes ; Jurisdiction ; Local government ; Municipal governments ; Regional planning ; Revenue sharing</subject><ispartof>The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1975-05, Vol.419 (1), p.50-62</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1975 The American Academy of Political and Social Science</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-7988a03e67ee0ce7f926aa6d16181e77528b2d72ead1c299d735da750ef783e63</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000271627541900106$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000271627541900106$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27846,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stenberg, Carl W.</creatorcontrib><title>Revenue Sharing and Governmental Reform</title><title>The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science</title><description>Even though the major purposes of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 were to provide financial relief, restore intergovernmental fiscal balance, and decentralize decision making, general revenue sharing is far from neutral with respect to other fiscal, structural and functional reforms. Some elements of the program stimulate improvements at the local and regional levels, while others support the jurisdictional status quo. There have been positive effects on citizen participation in the budgetary process, the equalization of fiscal disparities, and interlocal cooperation. The program has been less successful in encouraging more vigorous state revenue-raising efforts and in targeting funds to local governments having the greatest needs. It has often worked at cross-purposes with regional planning and review processes, as well as with organizations responsible for their conduct. The pending renewal of general revenue sharing will open a new chapter in the debate over governmental reform. Exclusion of limited purpose jurisdictions and removal of the 20 percent floor and 145 percent ceiling on local entitlements will likely receive particular attention as ways of providing more assistance to larger counties and municipalities. Yet, differences among the reformers themselves, probable political support for continuation of the program without basic changes, and philosophical resistance to attaching strings suggest that closer ties between general revenue sharing and government reform will be difficult to develop.</description><subject>Cities</subject><subject>Evaluation of General and Specific Policy Impact</subject><subject>Government</subject><subject>Government reform</subject><subject>Government relations</subject><subject>Income taxes</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Local government</subject><subject>Municipal governments</subject><subject>Regional planning</subject><subject>Revenue sharing</subject><issn>0002-7162</issn><issn>1552-3349</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1975</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEFLw0AQhRdRMFb_gHgIePAUO7Ob7GSPUrQKBaHqOazJpDY0Sd1NC_77JsRDQXAuc_m-9-AJcY1wj0g0BQBJqCUlMRoABH0iAkwSGSkVm1MRDEA0EOfiwvsKhkMTiLsl77nZcfj2Zd26WYW2KcJ5u2fX1Nx0dhMuuWxdfSnOSrvxfPX7J-Lj6fF99hwtXucvs4dFlCtNXUQmTS0o1sQMOVNppLZWF6gxRSZKZPopC5JsC8ylMQWppLCUAJeU9pqaiNsxd-va7x37LqvanWv6ygylIWkgJtNTcqRy13rvuMy2bl1b95MhZMMg2d9Bemk6St6u-Cj2P-NmNCrfte6oI0atjDoANm5nLw</recordid><startdate>197505</startdate><enddate>197505</enddate><creator>Stenberg, Carl W.</creator><general>American Academy of Political and Social Science</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>A. L. Hummel for the American Academy of Political and Social Science</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>FIXVA</scope><scope>FUVTR</scope><scope>HZAIM</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>197505</creationdate><title>Revenue Sharing and Governmental Reform</title><author>Stenberg, Carl W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-7988a03e67ee0ce7f926aa6d16181e77528b2d72ead1c299d735da750ef783e63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1975</creationdate><topic>Cities</topic><topic>Evaluation of General and Specific Policy Impact</topic><topic>Government</topic><topic>Government reform</topic><topic>Government relations</topic><topic>Income taxes</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Local government</topic><topic>Municipal governments</topic><topic>Regional planning</topic><topic>Revenue sharing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stenberg, Carl W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 03</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 06</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 26</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stenberg, Carl W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Revenue Sharing and Governmental Reform</atitle><jtitle>The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science</jtitle><date>1975-05</date><risdate>1975</risdate><volume>419</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>50</spage><epage>62</epage><pages>50-62</pages><issn>0002-7162</issn><eissn>1552-3349</eissn><abstract>Even though the major purposes of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 were to provide financial relief, restore intergovernmental fiscal balance, and decentralize decision making, general revenue sharing is far from neutral with respect to other fiscal, structural and functional reforms. Some elements of the program stimulate improvements at the local and regional levels, while others support the jurisdictional status quo. There have been positive effects on citizen participation in the budgetary process, the equalization of fiscal disparities, and interlocal cooperation. The program has been less successful in encouraging more vigorous state revenue-raising efforts and in targeting funds to local governments having the greatest needs. It has often worked at cross-purposes with regional planning and review processes, as well as with organizations responsible for their conduct. The pending renewal of general revenue sharing will open a new chapter in the debate over governmental reform. Exclusion of limited purpose jurisdictions and removal of the 20 percent floor and 145 percent ceiling on local entitlements will likely receive particular attention as ways of providing more assistance to larger counties and municipalities. Yet, differences among the reformers themselves, probable political support for continuation of the program without basic changes, and philosophical resistance to attaching strings suggest that closer ties between general revenue sharing and government reform will be difficult to develop.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>American Academy of Political and Social Science</pub><doi>10.1177/000271627541900106</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-7162 |
ispartof | The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1975-05, Vol.419 (1), p.50-62 |
issn | 0002-7162 1552-3349 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1297290479 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; SAGE Complete; Periodicals Index Online |
subjects | Cities Evaluation of General and Specific Policy Impact Government Government reform Government relations Income taxes Jurisdiction Local government Municipal governments Regional planning Revenue sharing |
title | Revenue Sharing and Governmental Reform |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T14%3A39%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Revenue%20Sharing%20and%20Governmental%20Reform&rft.jtitle=The%20Annals%20of%20the%20American%20Academy%20of%20Political%20and%20Social%20Science&rft.au=Stenberg,%20Carl%20W.&rft.date=1975-05&rft.volume=419&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=50&rft.epage=62&rft.pages=50-62&rft.issn=0002-7162&rft.eissn=1552-3349&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/000271627541900106&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1041639%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1297290479&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1041639&rft_sage_id=10.1177_000271627541900106&rfr_iscdi=true |