4.3 Revenue sharing
7 min read•august 21, 2024
Revenue sharing is a crucial fiscal policy tool that distributes funds from higher to lower government levels. It addresses vertical fiscal imbalances and plays a key role in shaping local government budgets and service provision in urban areas.
This mechanism comes in various forms, including unconditional transfers, conditional grants, and tax-sharing arrangements. Its history in the U.S. dates back to the Great Depression, evolving over time to balance local autonomy with national priorities in a federal system.
Definition of revenue sharing
- Fiscal policy mechanism where higher levels of government distribute funds to lower levels
- Aims to address vertical fiscal imbalances between different government tiers
- Plays a crucial role in urban fiscal policy by influencing local government budgets and service provision
Types of revenue sharing
Top images from around the web for Types of revenue sharing
The Sharing-Exchange Continuum Inside of the Sharing Economy View original
Is this image relevant?
State Power and Delegation – American Government (2e) View original
Is this image relevant?
6.3: Federalism: How is revenue shared? - Chemistry LibreTexts View original
Is this image relevant?
The Sharing-Exchange Continuum Inside of the Sharing Economy View original
Is this image relevant?
State Power and Delegation – American Government (2e) View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Types of revenue sharing
The Sharing-Exchange Continuum Inside of the Sharing Economy View original
Is this image relevant?
State Power and Delegation – American Government (2e) View original
Is this image relevant?
6.3: Federalism: How is revenue shared? - Chemistry LibreTexts View original
Is this image relevant?
The Sharing-Exchange Continuum Inside of the Sharing Economy View original
Is this image relevant?
State Power and Delegation – American Government (2e) View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Unconditional transfers allow recipient governments full discretion over fund usage
- Conditional transfers require funds to be used for specific purposes or programs
- Matching grants involve shared funding between different government levels for specific projects
- Revenue-sharing pools distribute a portion of collected taxes back to local jurisdictions
Historical context
- Originated in the United States during the Great Depression to support struggling local governments
- Gained prominence in the 1970s under President Nixon's "New Federalism" initiative
- Evolved over time in response to changing economic conditions and political priorities
- Influenced by broader debates on federalism and the appropriate balance of power between government levels
Federal revenue sharing
- Represents a significant component of intergovernmental fiscal relations in the United States
- Addresses disparities in fiscal capacity between federal and state/local governments
- Impacts urban fiscal policy by providing additional resources for local public services and infrastructure
General revenue sharing
- Provides unrestricted funds to state and local governments for broad use
- Allows flexibility in addressing local priorities and needs
- Calculated based on factors such as population, income levels, and
- Peaked during the 1970s and early 1980s before being phased out in 1986
Categorical grants
- Target specific policy areas or programs (education, healthcare, transportation)
- Come with strict guidelines and reporting requirements for fund usage
- Often require matching funds from recipient governments
- Represent a significant portion of federal aid to state and local governments
- Allow federal government to influence local policy priorities and implementation
State-local revenue sharing
- Involves distribution of funds from state governments to local jurisdictions
- Addresses intrastate fiscal disparities and supports local government functions
- Varies significantly across states in terms of structure and magnitude
Tax sharing arrangements
- Allocate a portion of state-collected taxes back to local governments
- Often based on origin of tax collection or predetermined formulas
- Common for sales taxes, income taxes, and natural resource revenues
- Provide a stable revenue source for local governments tied to economic activity
Block grants vs categorical grants
- Block grants offer more flexibility than categorical grants but less than general revenue sharing
- Allow states to allocate funds across broad functional areas (community development, social services)
- Categorical grants target specific programs with strict usage guidelines
- Block grants promote local decision-making while categorical grants ensure funding for national priorities
- Debate centers on balancing local autonomy with achieving specific policy objectives
Objectives of revenue sharing
- Aims to improve overall fiscal health and stability of different government levels
- Addresses vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalances within a federal system
- Supports the provision of essential public services across diverse jurisdictions
Fiscal equalization
- Reduces disparities in fiscal capacity between different regions or localities
- Ensures a minimum level of public services regardless of local economic conditions
- Utilizes formulas that account for factors like population, tax base, and cost of service provision
- Promotes social equity by redistributing resources from wealthier to poorer areas
Local autonomy vs centralization
- Balances the desire for local control with the need for national standards and priorities
- Unrestricted revenue sharing enhances local autonomy in decision-making
- Conditional transfers allow higher levels of government to influence local policies
- Reflects ongoing debates about the optimal distribution of power in a federal system
Allocation formulas
- Determine how revenue sharing funds are distributed among recipient governments
- Aim to achieve specific policy objectives (equity, efficiency, need-based allocation)
- Often combine multiple factors to create a comprehensive distribution mechanism
Population-based formulas
- Allocate funds proportionally based on the population of recipient jurisdictions
- Ensure a basic level of per capita funding across different areas
- May be adjusted for factors like population density or demographic characteristics
- Simple to administer but may not account for varying needs or costs across localities
Need-based formulas
- Consider socioeconomic indicators to target areas with greater fiscal challenges
- Incorporate factors such as poverty rates, unemployment, or infrastructure deficits
- Aim to direct more resources to jurisdictions with higher service demands or lower fiscal capacity
- Can be more complex to design and implement than population-based formulas
Performance-based formulas
- Allocate funds based on achievement of specific goals or outcomes
- Incentivize efficient use of resources and improved service delivery
- May consider metrics like educational attainment, public health outcomes, or economic development
- Can be controversial due to challenges in defining and measuring performance across diverse jurisdictions
Impact on local governments
- Significantly influences local government budgets and fiscal planning
- Affects the ability of cities and counties to provide essential services and infrastructure
- Shapes intergovernmental relations and dynamics
Fiscal capacity enhancement
- Provides additional resources beyond local tax bases and user fees
- Enables local governments to undertake projects or programs beyond their own revenue capabilities
- Helps address fiscal stress during economic downturns or emergencies
- Supports long-term investments in infrastructure and human capital development
Dependency concerns
- Creates potential reliance on external funding sources for ongoing operations
- May discourage local tax effort or revenue diversification strategies
- Can lead to fiscal instability if shared revenues are reduced or eliminated
- Raises questions about local government autonomy and accountability to higher-level authorities
Criticisms of revenue sharing
- Generates debate among policymakers, economists, and public finance experts
- Reflects broader discussions about the role of government and fiscal federalism
- Influences ongoing policy reforms and adjustments to revenue sharing programs
Inefficiency arguments
- Critics argue that revenue sharing can lead to suboptimal allocation of resources
- May reduce incentives for local governments to control costs or improve efficiency
- Can create a "soft budget constraint" where local officials expect bailouts from higher levels
- Potentially distorts local decision-making by providing "free" money not tied to local tax effort
Political manipulation concerns
- Allocation formulas may be subject to political influence and lobbying
- Can be used as a tool for rewarding political allies or punishing opponents
- May lead to creation of unnecessary programs to capture available funds
- Raises questions about transparency and accountability in fund distribution and usage
Alternative funding mechanisms
- Explore options beyond traditional revenue sharing to support local government finance
- Aim to enhance fiscal autonomy and reduce dependence on
- Reflect changing economic conditions and evolving views on fiscal federalism
Local tax options
- Expand authority for local governments to impose and collect their own taxes
- May include local sales taxes, income taxes, or special purpose taxes (tourism, entertainment)
- Provide more direct link between local tax effort and service provision
- Can lead to tax competition between jurisdictions and potential "race to the bottom" concerns
User fees vs revenue sharing
- Shift towards greater reliance on charges for specific services (water, waste management, recreation)
- Align costs more closely with benefits received by individual users or properties
- Reduce dependence on general revenue sources and intergovernmental transfers
- May raise equity concerns if essential services become unaffordable for low-income residents
International comparisons
- Examine how different countries structure their intergovernmental fiscal relations
- Provide insights into alternative approaches to addressing fiscal imbalances and local government finance
- Highlight the influence of political systems and historical contexts on revenue sharing practices
Revenue sharing in federalist systems
- Compare approaches in countries like Canada, Germany, and Australia to the United States
- Analyze variations in formulas, conditions, and objectives of revenue sharing programs
- Examine the balance between national unity and regional autonomy in different federal systems
- Consider how different models address issues of horizontal and vertical
Unitary government approaches
- Explore revenue sharing mechanisms in countries with more centralized governance (France, Japan)
- Analyze how unitary systems balance local needs with national priorities in
- Compare the degree of local fiscal autonomy between unitary and federal systems
- Examine the role of regional or provincial governments as intermediaries in fund distribution
Future of revenue sharing
- Consider evolving trends and challenges in intergovernmental fiscal relations
- Anticipate potential reforms and policy shifts in revenue sharing programs
- Reflect on the changing nature of federalism and local government finance
Policy trends
- Move towards greater use of performance-based allocation mechanisms
- Increased emphasis on transparency and accountability in fund usage and reporting
- Growing interest in targeted transfers to address specific urban challenges (affordable housing, climate resilience)
- Exploration of new revenue sources (digital taxation, sharing economy) for intergovernmental distribution
Fiscal federalism debates
- Ongoing discussions about the appropriate balance of fiscal responsibilities between government levels
- Consideration of how technological changes and globalization impact local revenue bases
- Debates on the role of revenue sharing in addressing growing urban-rural disparities
- Examination of how revenue sharing can adapt to changing demographic patterns and urbanization trends
Key Terms to Review (16)
Community development block grant: A community development block grant (CDBG) is a federal program that provides financial assistance to local governments to support community development activities such as housing, infrastructure, and economic development. This program aims to enhance the quality of life for residents, especially those with low to moderate incomes, by addressing various social and economic issues through targeted funding.
Dependency: Dependency refers to a reliance on external sources for financial resources, often manifesting in the context of local governments receiving funds from higher levels of government. This reliance can lead to an imbalance in local fiscal autonomy and may affect decision-making processes as local governments depend on these transfers for budgeting and service provision. The nature of dependency also emphasizes the intricate relationships between different levels of government and their roles in fiscal policy and public administration.
Equity in funding: Equity in funding refers to the principle that financial resources should be allocated fairly and justly to ensure that all communities, regardless of their wealth or socio-economic status, have access to necessary services and support. This concept is crucial for promoting social justice and addressing disparities, particularly in the context of revenue sharing and the impact of unfunded mandates on local governments.
Fiscal Equalization: Fiscal equalization refers to the process of redistributing financial resources among different levels of government or regions to achieve greater equity in public service delivery and fiscal capacity. This mechanism aims to reduce disparities in revenue-raising abilities and service levels between wealthier and poorer jurisdictions, ensuring that all areas can provide a comparable level of services to their residents.
Fiscal federalism: Fiscal federalism refers to the financial relationships and fiscal interactions between different levels of government, particularly how they share revenue and responsibilities. This concept is crucial for understanding the dynamics of federal, state, and local government finances and how they influence public policy and service delivery. It involves not just revenue sharing, but also the allocation of resources, the imposition of mandates, and the effects of decentralization on fiscal stability.
Horizontal revenue sharing: Horizontal revenue sharing is a fiscal policy approach where revenues are distributed among local governments at the same level, typically to ensure equitable funding and support for public services across jurisdictions. This method aims to reduce disparities between wealthy and less wealthy municipalities, fostering a fairer allocation of resources to meet community needs.
Incentive distortion: Incentive distortion refers to the misalignment between intended incentives and the actual behaviors they produce within a system, often resulting in inefficient or undesirable outcomes. This can occur when external factors, such as funding structures or regulations, skew the motivations of decision-makers, leading to actions that do not align with the overall goals of resource allocation and service delivery. It is particularly relevant in discussions about how financial arrangements can impact local governments and public service performance.
Intergovernmental transfers: Intergovernmental transfers are the financial allocations made by one level of government to another, often aimed at supporting local or state governments in providing essential services and addressing fiscal disparities. These transfers play a crucial role in the fiscal relationships between federal, state, and local governments, ensuring that resources are distributed according to need and capacity.
Per capita revenue: Per capita revenue refers to the average amount of revenue collected by a government or organization per person within a specific population. This metric is crucial for understanding how much financial resource is generated for each individual and can indicate the fiscal health of a jurisdiction. By analyzing per capita revenue, stakeholders can make informed decisions about budgeting, resource allocation, and the effectiveness of revenue-generating strategies.
Public Choice Theory: Public choice theory is an economic concept that applies the principles of economic analysis to political decision-making, suggesting that individuals in the public sector act based on their self-interest, just like individuals in the private sector. It highlights how government officials, voters, and interest groups make choices that can lead to outcomes that may not align with the collective good, impacting various aspects of urban policy and fiscal management.
Resource allocation: Resource allocation refers to the process of distributing available resources among various projects or business units. In public finance, it is crucial for ensuring that limited government funds are used effectively to meet the needs of the community. Efficient resource allocation influences how funds are shared between different levels of government and public services, ultimately impacting service delivery and overall economic stability.
Revenue Sharing Act: The Revenue Sharing Act refers to legislation that provides federal funds to state and local governments, allowing them to spend money according to their own priorities. This act was aimed at giving more financial flexibility to local entities by distributing a portion of federal tax revenues directly to them, rather than dictating how the funds should be used. The idea behind it was to enhance local governance and empower communities in decision-making processes.
State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act: The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act is a federal law enacted in 1972 that aimed to provide financial support to state and local governments through revenue sharing. This act was designed to help municipalities manage their budgets more effectively, allowing them greater flexibility in spending for essential services such as education, public safety, and infrastructure. It represents a significant shift in how federal funds were allocated, moving from categorical grants to more unrestricted funding options.
Tax effort: Tax effort refers to the degree to which a government utilizes its potential tax base to generate revenue. It is often measured by comparing actual tax revenues to the maximum possible tax revenues that could be collected given the size of the economy and existing tax laws. A higher tax effort indicates a government is effectively leveraging its taxation capacity, which can be crucial for resource allocation and fiscal health.
Urban Development Action Grant: An Urban Development Action Grant is a federal program designed to provide financial assistance to cities for urban revitalization projects. This grant program aims to stimulate economic growth, enhance community development, and improve the quality of life in urban areas by supporting local initiatives that address housing, infrastructure, and community services. The grant encourages collaboration between public entities and private sectors, making it a crucial tool in urban policy discussions.
Vertical revenue sharing: Vertical revenue sharing is a fiscal policy mechanism where revenue collected by a higher level of government is distributed to lower levels of government, often to support specific programs or services. This approach ensures that local governments receive a portion of the revenue generated at the state or federal level, allowing them to fund public services and infrastructure while promoting equity and stability across different regions.