Advertisement

The impact of state intervention and bankruptcy authorization laws on local government deficits

  • Lang YangEmail author
Original Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Local governments in the United States can file for bankruptcy to restructure their debt if allowed by state laws. While some states legislate an unconditional authorization, others conditionally permit local filings, do not give authorization, or intervene in local crises. This paper investigates the impact of state policy adoption on local governments’ revenue to expense ratio, a measure of deficit. While bankruptcy authorizations do not show an impact at the mean, a median locality decreases the revenue–expense ratio after the state adopts an authorization unconditional on state intervention, suggesting a moral hazard effect. Localities with conditionally high deficits, however, increase the ratio upon the adoption of a conditional authorization, possibly because they want to avoid being subjective to conditions placed by states.

Keywords

Fiscal rules Fiscal federalism Municipal bankruptcy Fiscal sustainability 

JEL Classification

D82 H71 H74 H77 

Notes

References

  1. Allers MA (2015) The Dutch local government bailout puzzle. Public Adm 93(2):451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleson J, Parsons E, Haughwout A (2012) The untold story of municipal bond defaults. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/08/the-untold-story-of-municipal-bond-defaults.html. Accessed 18 Jan 2019
  3. Baker T (1996) On the genealogy of moral hazard. Tex Law Rev 75(20):237–292Google Scholar
  4. Baskaran T (2017) Local fiscal polity after a bailout: austerity or soft budget constraints? Econ Gov 18:209–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker T, Richards A, Thaicharoen Y (2003) Bond restructuring and moral hazard: are collective action clauses costly? J Int Econ 61(1):127–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonilla L, Lopez E, McMillen D (2015) House prices and school choice: evidence from Chicago’s magnet schools proximity lottery. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunch B (1991) The effect of constitutional debt limits on state governments’ use of public authorities. Public Choice 68(1–3):57–69Google Scholar
  8. Cabasés F, Pascual P, Vallés J (2007) The effectiveness of institutional borrowing restrictions: empirical evidence from Spanish municipalities. Public Choice 131(3):293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cahill AG, James JA (1992) Responding to municipal fiscal distress: an emerging issue for state governments in the 1990s. Public Adm Rev 52(1):88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canay IA (2011) A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. Econom J 14(3):368–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll DA (2009) Diversifying municipal government revenue structures: fiscal illusion or instability? Public Budg Finance 29(1):27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Angelis M, Tian X (2013) United States: Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy: utilization, avoidance, and impact. In: Dos Santos C, Filho O, Liu L (eds) Until debt do us part: subnational debt, insolvency, and markets, pp 311–353. The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Dove JA (2016) Do fiscal constraints prevent default? Historical evidence from U.S. Municipalities. Econom Gov 17:185–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eichler S, Hofmann M (2013) Sovereign default risk and decentralization: evidence for emerging markets. Eur J Polit Econ 32:113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freyberg DJ (1996) Municipal bankruptcy and express state authorization to be a Chapter 9 debtor: current state approaches to municipal insolvency and what will states do now? Ohio North Univ Law Rev 23:1001–1027Google Scholar
  16. Gao P, Lee C, Murphy D (2017) Municipal borrowing costs and state policies for distressed municipalities. J Financ Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.10.009 Google Scholar
  17. Gillette CP (2012) Fiscal federalism, political will, and strategic use of municipal bankruptcy. Univ Chic Law Rev 79:281–330Google Scholar
  18. Goodspeed TJ (2002) Bailouts in a federation. Int Tax Public Finance 9(4):409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grochulski B (2010) Optimal personal bankruptcy design under moral hazard. Rev Econ Dyn 13:350–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inman RP (2001) Transfers and bailouts: institutions for enforcing local fiscal discipline. Const Polit Econ 12(2):141–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inman R (2003) Transfers and bailouts: enforcing local fiscal discipline with lessons from U.S. Federalism. In: Rodden et al (eds) Fiscal decentralization and the challenge of hard budget constraints. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 35–83Google Scholar
  22. Johnson CL, Kioko SN, Hildreth WB (2012) Government-wide financial statements and credit risk. Public Budg Finance 32(1):80–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis CW (1994) Budgetary balance: the norm, concept, and practice in large U.S. cities. Public Admin Rev 54(6):515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu L, Tian X, Wallis JJ (2013) Caveat creditor: state systems of local government borrowing in the United States. In: Dos Santos C, Filho O, Liu L (eds) Until debt do us part: subnational debt, insolvency, and markets. The World Bank, Washington, pp 311–353Google Scholar
  25. Moldogaziev TT, Kioko SN, Hildreth WB (2017) Impact of bankruptcy eligibility requirements and statutory liens on borrowing costs. Public Budg Finance 37(4):47–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moringiello JM (2014) Goals and governance in municipal bankruptcy. Wash Lee L Rev 71:403Google Scholar
  27. Oates W (2005) Toward a second-generation theory of fiscal federalism. Int Tax Public Finance 12:349–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poterba JM (1994) State responses to fiscal crises: the effects of budgetary institutions and politics. J Polit Econ 102(4):799–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poterba JM (1996) Budget institutions and fiscal policy in the U.S. states. Am Econ Rev 86(2):395–400Google Scholar
  30. Qian Y, Weingast BR (1997) Federalism as a commitment to preserving market incentives. J Econ Perspect 11(4):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rampini A (2005) Default and aggregate income. J Econ Theory 122:225–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rodden J (2006) Hamilton’s paradox: the promise and peril of fiscal federalism. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Schroedter A (2014) Next Up: Illinois municipal bankruptcy? Better government association. http://www.bettergov.org/news/next-up-illinois-municipal-bankruptcy. Accessed 18 Jan 2019
  34. Spiotto JE (2008) Chapter 9: the last resort for financially distressed municipalities. In: Feldstein S, Fabozzi F (eds) The handbook of municipal bonds. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  35. Spiotto JE (2013) The role of the state in supervising and assisting municipalities, especially in times of financial distress. Munic Finance J 33(4):1–31Google Scholar
  36. Suyderhoud JP (1994) State-local revenue diversification, balance, and fiscal performance. Public Finance Rev 22(2):168–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Velasco A (2000) Debts and deficits with fragmented fiscal policymaking. J Public Econ 76:105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang X, Dennis L, Tu YSJ (2007) Measuring financial condition: a study of US states. Public Budg Finance 27(2):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. White MJ (2002) Sovereigns in distress: do they need bankruptcy? Brook Pap Econ Activity 2002(1):287–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wibbels E (2005) Federalism and the market: intergovernmental conflict and economic reform in the developing world. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang L (2018) Negative externality of fiscal problems: dissecting the contagion effect of municipal bankruptcy. Public Admin Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12986 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations