Atlantic Economic Journal

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 311–322 | Cite as

Comparing Apples to Apples: Estimating Fiscal Need in the United States with a Regression-Based Representative Expenditure Approach

  • Jason DelaneyEmail author


State fiscal governance requires both raising revenue and spending on government services. The literature on fiscal equalization and horizontal equity has established that measures of fiscal capacity, or the revenue-raising ability of a sub-national government, should be complemented by measures of fiscal need, the ability of a sub-national government to provide services given an average level of revenue. The representative tax system is an established method for measuring fiscal capacity, but the measurement of fiscal need has received less attention, with economically significant consequences. This paper provides the first regression-based estimates of state-level fiscal need in the United States, introducing a novel, data-intensive extension of the representative expenditure system that estimates fiscal need in the United States using regression methods rather than the current workload-based approach. Data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia were used, including actual expenditure by spending category as well as a large set of potential determinants of both capacity and need, to estimate the level of spending required for each state to provide a national average level of public services. Three regression approaches are considered: the most data-intensive, least data-intensive, and an intermediate method to determine the robustness of the estimates to methodological changes. Regression-based results indicate that prior workload-based approaches provide estimates at odds with both theory and actual state expenditure behavior. Among regression-based approaches, even the least data-intensive approach appears to offer improvements on existing methods. This paper estimates that 1.3% of gross domestic product may be misallocated.


Intergovernmental fiscal relations Expenditure need Representative expenditure system Equalization Methodology Horizontal equity Fiscal federalism 


H73 R51 



I thank Jane G. Gravelle, Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, James C. Cox, and Sarah Jacobson, as well as the participants in the Urban, Regional, and Environmental Economics Colloquium at Georgia State University for their helpful comments and guidance.

Supplementary material

11293_2019_9626_MOESM1_ESM.dta (1 mb)
ESM 1 (DTA 1067 kb)


  1. Alm, J., & Martinez-Vazquez, J. (2015). Re-designing equalization transfers: An application to South Africa’s provincial equitable share. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird, R., & Vaillancourt, F. (2007). Expenditure-based equalization transfers. In J. Martinez-Vazquez & B. Searle (Eds.), Fiscal Equalization: Challenges in the Design of Intergovernmental Transfers (pp. 259–289). Boston: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boadway, R., & Flatters, F. (1982). Efficiency and equalization payments in a Federal System of government: A synthesis and extension of recent results. The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue Canadienne d’Economique, 15(4), 613–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boex, J., & Martinez-Vazquez, J. (2007). Designing intergovernmental equalization transfers with imperfect data: Concepts, practices, and lessons. In J. Martinez-Vazquez & B. Searle (Eds.), Fiscal Equalization: Challenges in the Design of Intergovernmental Transfers (pp. 291–343). Boston: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, J. M. (1950). Federalism and fiscal equity. The American Economic Review, 40(4), 583–599.Google Scholar
  6. Delaney, J. (2007). The representative expenditure system and the District of Columbia’s financial need. State Tax Notes 46(2), 99–114.Google Scholar
  7. Di Liddo, G., Longobardi, E., & Porcelli, F. (2016). Measuring horizontal fiscal imbalance: The case of Italian municipalities. Local Government Studies, 42(3), 385–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). Crime in the United States, 2000. Available at: Last accessed 5/13/2019.
  9. Larsen, C. A. (2008). The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: How welfare regimes influence public support. Comparative Political Studies, 41(2), 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mahdavi, S., & Westerlund, J. (2011). Fiscal stringency and fiscal sustainability: Panel evidence from the American state and local governments. Journal of Policy Modeling, 33(6), 953–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martinez-Vazquez, J., Lago-Peñas, S., & Sacchi, A. (2017). The impact of fiscal decentralization: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(4), 1095–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McLarty, R. A. (1997). Econometric analysis and public policy: The case of fiscal need assessment. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, 23(2), 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mushkin, S., & Rivlin, A. (1962). Measures of state and local fiscal capacity. Washington, DC: Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations.Google Scholar
  14. Porter, T. S. (2010). Trends in the fiscal capacity of Ohio’s public schools. Journal of Education Finance, 35(3), 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rafuse, R. W. (1990). Representative expenditures: Addressing the neglected dimension of fiscal capacity. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.Google Scholar
  16. Ruggles, S., Flood, S., Goeken, R., Grover, J., Meyer, E., Pacas, J., and Sobek, M. (2019). IPUMS USA: Version 9.0. (1997-2002 data) available at Last accessed 5/13/2019.
  17. Shah, A. (1996). A fiscal need approach to equalization. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, 22(2), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shah, A. (1997). Econometric analysis and public policy: The case of fiscal need assessment: A reply. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, 23(2), 209–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tannenwald, R. (2002). Interstate fiscal disparity in 1997. New England Economic Review, 17–34.Google Scholar
  20. Tannenwald, R., & Cowan, J. (1997). Fiscal capacity, fiscal need, and fiscal comfort among U.S. states: New evidence. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 27(3), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tannenwald, R., and Turner, N. (2005). Interstate fiscal disparity in state fiscal year 1999. State Tax Notes 36(8), 585–598.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2019a). Gross Domestic Product [GDP] (1947–2019). Available at: Last accessed 5/13/2019.
  23. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2019b). State and Local Government Current Expenditures [SLEXPND] (1947–2019). Available at: Last accessed 5/13/2019.
  24. U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances and Census of Governments (2002). Available at: Last accessed 5/13/2019.
  25. Vo, D. H. (2010). The economics of fiscal decentralization. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(4), 657–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson, L. S. (2003). Equalization, efficiency and migration: Watson revisited. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, 29(4), 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yilmaz, Y., Hoo, S., Nagowski, M., Rueben, K. S., & Tannenwald, R. (2006). Measuring fiscal disparities across the U.S. states: A representative revenue system/representative expenditure system approach, fiscal year 2002. SSRN scholarly paper. ID 1957339. Rochester: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  28. Yinger, J., & Ladd, H. F. (1989). The determinants of state assistance to central cities. National Tax Journal, 42(4), 413–428.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Atlantic Economic Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationGeorgia Gwinnett CollegeLawrencevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations