Skip to main content

Current Midyear Municipal Budget Forecast Accuracy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Public Debt, Spending, and Revenue ((PDSR))

Abstract

This chapter examines current year budget forecast performance for municipal governments in the United States. Midyear forecasts are especially important for governments because budgets authorize public spending and changes to legal financial plans. Ample research examines forecasts beyond the current fiscal year, yet little work analyzes forecasts made during the current fiscal year for the remainder of that year. Although an examination of the literature suggests that midyear forecasts can reflect substantial improvement, the empirical analysis shows no significant evidence of improvement and even finds evidence that expenditure forecasts become worse at shorter time horizons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Revenue forecasters also look at collections as a preview of economic conditions because these tend to be good coincident indicators of the economy. Expenditure forecasters use current year spending to discern if there are demographic or social condition changes in the jurisdiction, or provide data on signs of unexpected policy outcomes affecting agencies. In both cases, these forecasters are trying to use current year budget forecasts to improve next year’s budget.

  2. 2.

    The formulas for error measures are provided in Appendix.

  3. 3.

    Computed by current authors.

  4. 4.

    The U-statistic is problematic because there are six or more variations (see Appendix).

  5. 5.

    Those that specifically report MAPE estimates have been included. Because of the lack of comparability (see Appendix), studies that report Theil’s U but not MAPE are excluded. No reviewed studies of this sort report symmetrical mean absolute percent errors (SMAPEs).

  6. 6.

    “Horizon” refers to the distance from forecast to prediction, so, for monthly forecasts, H3 refers to a forecast for three months into the future.

  7. 7.

    For actual budgets, the horizons may not start at 1, but at some higher numbered period.

  8. 8.

    The U2 values are presented, but not compared as discussed in Appendix.

  9. 9.

    https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/u-statistic-theils/. Accessed on 12/30/18.

  10. 10.

    Some notation has been modified to make the equation more explicit or to be consistent with other equations for Theil’s U.

  11. 11.

    https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/showcase/cook_forecast. Accessed on 12/30/18.

  12. 12.

    Some notation has been modified to be consistent with other equations for Theil’s U.

References

  • Angus-Leppan, P., & Fatseas, V. (1986). The forecasting accuracy of trainee accountants using judgmental and statistical techniques. Accounting and Business Research, 16(63), 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athanasopoulos, G., Hyndman, R. J., Song, H., & Wu, D. C. (2011). The tourism forecasting competition. International Journal of Forecasting, 27(3), 822–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Emmerson, C., & Frayne, C. (2003). An examination of the IFS corporation tax forecasting record. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, IFS Working Paper WP 03/21. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2003.0321.

  • Batchelor, R. (2007). Bias in macroeconomic forecasts. International Journal of Forecasting, 23(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2007.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliemel, F. (1973). Theil’s forecast accuracy coefficient: A clarification. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4), 444–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buettner, T., & Kauder, B. (2015). Political biases despite external expert participation? An empirical analysis of tax revenue forecasts in Germany. Public Choice, 164(3–4), 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carabotta, L. (2014). Which agency and which period is the best? Analyzing national and international fiscal forecasts in Italy. International Journal of Economic Sciences, 2014(1), 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, A. J. H. (1976). Errors in National Institute forecasts of personal incomes, inflation and employment, 1965–75. National Institute Economic Review, 78(1), 48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Deus, J. D. B. V., & de Mendonça, H. F. (2017). Fiscal forecasting performance in an emerging economy: An empirical assessment of Brazil. Economic Systems, 41(3), 408–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isiklar, G., Lahiri, K., & Loungani, P. (2006). How quickly do forecasters incorporate news? Evidence from cross-country surveys. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 21(6), 703–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, M. J., Edmundson, R. H., & O’Connor, M. J. (1985). An examination of the accuracy of judgmental extrapolation of time series. International Journal of Forecasting, 1(1), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lienert, I. (2013). The legal framework for public finances and budget systems. In R. Allen, R. Hemming, & B. H. Potter (Eds.), The international handbook of public financial management (pp. 63–83). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Loungani, P. (2001). How accurate are private sector forecasts? Cross-country evidence from consensus forecasts of output growth. International Journal of Forecasting, 17(3), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(01)00098-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makridakis, S., & Hibon, M. (2000). The M3-competition: Results, conclusions and implications. International Journal of Forecasting, 16(4), 451–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makridakis, S., Andersen, A., Carbone, R., Fildes, R., Hibon, M., Lewandowski, R., et al. (1982). The accuracy of extrapolation (time series) methods: Results of a forecasting competition. Journal of Forecasting, 1(2), 111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makridakis, S., Chatfield, C., Hibon, M., Lawrence, M. J., Mills, T., Ord, K., & Simmons, L. F. (1993). The M2-competition: A real-time judgmentally based forecasting study. International Journal of Forecasting, 9(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2070(93)90044-N.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marinheiro, C. F. (2011). Fiscal sustainability and the accuracy of macroeconomic forecasts: Do supranational forecasts rather than government forecasts make a difference? International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 3(2), 185–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardaev, U. (2016). Analyzes of state budget forecasting errors and issues of forecasting accuracy. Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education, 5, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, T., & Savage, D. (1998). Forecasting the public finances in the Treasury. Fiscal Studies, 19(1), 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plesko, G. A. (1988). The accuracy of government forecasts and budget projections. National Tax Journal, 41(4), 483–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stekler, H. O. (1967). The federal budget as a short-term forecasting tool. The Journal of Business, 40(3), 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. W., & Calabrese, T. D. (2016). The status of budget forecasting. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 2(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.2.2.127-160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria, M., & Ali, S. (2010). Fiscal marksmanship in Pakistan. Lahore Journal of Economics, 15(2), 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Williams .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Equations and Discussion of Theil’s U

Appendix: Equations and Discussion of Theil’s U

All equations used in this chapter are included in this appendix.

$$ \mathrm{APE}=\left|\frac{\mathrm{Actual}-\mathrm{Forecast}}{\mathrm{Actual}}\right| $$
(13.1)
$$ \mathrm{MAPE}=\frac{\sum \mathrm{APE}}{n} $$
(13.2)
$$ \mathrm{SAPE}=\left|\frac{\mathrm{Actual}-\mathrm{Forecast}}{\raisebox{1ex}{$\left(\mathrm{Actual}+\mathrm{Forecast}\right)$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$2$}\right.}\right| $$
(13.3)
$$ \mathrm{SMAPE}=\frac{\sum \mathrm{SAPE}}{n} $$
(13.4)
$$ {U}_2=\frac{{\left[\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{\left({P}_i-{A}_i\right)}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{\left[\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{A_i}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}} $$
(13.5)

For this Theil’s U formula, P = the forecasted change and A = the actual change (Bliemel 1973). For all other equations, the actual and forecast refer to the whole numbers.

$$ \mathrm{PCT}\kern0.5em \mathrm{Improved}=\frac{\mathrm{M}\kern0.5em \mathrm{Adopted}-\mathrm{M}\kern0.5em \mathrm{Modified}}{\mathrm{M}\kern0.5em \mathrm{Adopted}} $$
(13.6)

where M refers to an error measure (MAPE, SMAPE or Theil’s U2).

$$ \mathrm{PCTBTTR}=\frac{\mathrm{SAPE}\kern0.33em \mathrm{Adopted}-\mathrm{SAPE}\kern0.33em \mathrm{Modified}}{\mathrm{SAPE}\kern0.33em \mathrm{Adopted}} $$
(13.7)

Alternate calculations of Theil’s U not used:

$$ {U}_1=\frac{{\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{\left({P}_i-{A}_i\right)}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{A_i}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}+{\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{P_i}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}} $$
(13.8)

This equation has two variants, where P and A may either refer to the whole numbers (forecast and actual) or the forecasted and actual changes (Bliemel 1973). Zakaria and Ali (2010) offer an apparent clarification of U1 incorporating the change formulation as:

$$ {U}_3=\frac{{\left[\frac{1}{t}\sum \limits_{i=1}^t{\left[\left({P}_i-{A}_{i-1}\right)=\left({A}_i-{A}_{i-1}\right)\right]}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{\left[\frac{1}{t}\sum \limits_{i=1}^t\kern0.28em {\left({P}_i-{A}_{i-1}\right)}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}+{\left[\frac{1}{t}\sum \limits_{i=1}^t\kern0.28em {\left({A}_i-{A}_{i-1}\right)}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}} $$
(13.9)

It is also possible that U2 can be calculated in both variants (whole number or change). Bliemel (1973) finds that U1 fails to effectively distinguish between accurate and inaccurate forecast, but U2 does. U1 and U2 can be confused, as seen with this internet resourceFootnote 9 that reverses the labels between U1 and U2.

Dean (1976) reintroduces the use of mean squared values in the place of squared values for U2 and gives an alternate equation asFootnote 10:

$$ {U}_2=\frac{{\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{\left({P}_{i+1}-{A}_i\right)}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{A}_i^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}} $$
(13.10)

Carabotta (2014) gives the equation (although labeled “T,” it reflects the U statistic development):

$$ T=\frac{RMS{E}_{e_t}}{RMS{E}_{AR(1)}} $$
(13.11)

Next, an internet sourceFootnote 11 uses proportionate values of change and calculates U2 asFootnote 12:

$$ {U}_2=\frac{{\left[\frac{1}{T}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{T-1}\frac{{\left({P}_{i+1}-{A}_{i+1}\right)}^2}{A_i}\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{\left[\frac{1}{T}\sum \limits_{i=1}^{Tn}{\left(\frac{A_{\left(i+1\right)}-{A}_i}{Ai}\right)}^2\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}} $$
(13.12)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Williams, D., Calabrese, T. (2019). Current Midyear Municipal Budget Forecast Accuracy. In: Williams, D., Calabrese, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Government Budget Forecasting. Palgrave Studies in Public Debt, Spending, and Revenue. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18195-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18195-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18194-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18195-6

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics