Article Review: America and the Founding Assignment for Module 6: Week 6
Son James Kim
Dr. Erik Root
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
PLCY 804_B02_202230 (Spring 2022)
June 19, 2022
2
ANNOTATIONS
Collins, Brian K., and Brian J. Gerber. 2006. “Redistributive Policy and Devolution: Is
State Administration a Road Block (Grant) to Equitable Access to Federal Funds?”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16, no. 4: 613-632.
In their 2006 work, Collins and Gerber study redistributive policy as well as devolution,
focusing primarily on block grants and their administrative ability. The authors' study led to the
development of three distinct theories about competition and the many different features that
may be related with it. Attempted to initiate an assessment of the information, non-entitlement
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) data was obtained from four states between
1999 and 2000. The examination of the hypotheses proved to be a strength in looking at a variety
of data depending on the study subject, resulting in more trustworthy findings. The article
discusses challenges that are inherent to CDBG, which may make it difficult to qualify for one of
these grants. According to Collins and Gerber (2006), it may be difficult to administer second-
level funds, which are provided to local governments in order to put into action a federal block
grant. These difficulties are in part caused by the fact that the issues are being implemented by
the local governments in accordance with the procedural constraints that have been set by the
federal government. Although local governments have benefits aligned with the redistributive
aim of a block grant, this does not guarantee that they will be able to execute and adhere to the
federal processes defined for the block grant (Brian K. Collins and Brian J. Gerber 2006, 615).
The authors suggest that local governments that have better administrative competence
have a greater chance of implementing initiatives with fewer serious hiccups. The significance of
administrative capability is inextricably linked to transaction costs, which have the potential to
restrict access to CDBG financing. According to the results of their study, the administrative
3
capability of a local government was directly correlated to the amount of non-entitlement
CDBGs that the local government had access to in areas of grant competition. Because of the
high transaction costs involved, local governments that do not have the administrative capability
are intrinsically unable to compete for federal grant funds. In a nutshell, institutional agreements
made at the state level can improve the fairness of program management while preserving the
potential advantages connected with grant contracting that are won via competition (Brian K.
Collins and Brian J. Gerber 2006, 628).
Pagano, Michael A. and Jocelyn M. Johnston. 2000. “Life at the Bottom of the Fiscal Food
Chain: Examining City and County Revenue Decisions.” Publius 30, no. 1: 159-170
Pagano and Johnston (2000) explore what they call the "revenue implications of
devolution" in their published study. "Federal 'devolution' is prompting states to take a new look
at the division of tax and service responsibilities between state government and county,
municipal, and other local governments," as stated by the National Conference of State
Legislatures. "Federal 'devolution' is prompting states to take a new look at the division of tax
and service responsibilities" (Pagano and Johnston 2000, 159). Between the years 1992 and
1997, a data analysis was carried out for municipal governments and county governments. The
analysis focused on the closing balances as well as the revenue obligations. Research conducted
by the author revealed a transfer of responsibility to "general-purpose governments" (Pagano and
Johnston 2000, 160).
These obligations were often connected to decisions about how to raise more money. To
generate extra cash, it was anticipated that cities and counties would employ other methods, such
as raising taxes and other fees that may be gathered to garner additional income via these means.
Residents took up financial responsibilities to reduce the overall cost of introducing new services
4
in the cities or communities in which they lived. There were two diverse ways of measuring the
influence on local income that was looked at. The metrics were related with the "general-fund
property-tax revenues as a fraction of the general-fund own-source revenues" (Herbert, Killough,
and Steiss 1984). These revenues were then used as a proxy for the city's and county's efforts to
diversify their sources of income. The implication of the paper was that individuals would be
more ready to bear more significant revenue burdens if such liabilities were not connected with
property taxes. Pagano and Johnston (2000) established a connection between effective
"intergovernmental help" and tax burdens for states and municipal governments.
According to the findings of their study, increasing the number of new services provided
by municipal and county governments would result in an increased likelihood of lowering the
amount of tax obligations. The excess monies from previous budget cycles will be carried over to
the subsequent planning cycle for cities that have a carryover surplus. It is fair to anticipate that
the increase or change in intergovernmental assistance will have connection to the variation in
the final balances (Pagano and Johnston 2000, 166). For counties that could be short on income,
assistance from other governments might be an essential source of cash. According to Pagano
and Johnston (2000), the state will decide which municipalities and counties have access to
diverse sources of money; however, this may come with financial restrictions.
SYNTHESIS
According to the authors, does the federal government’s fiscal measures (both taxing and
spending) have an overall beneficial or negative effect on sub-national governments?
The articles that were written by Pagano and Johnston as well as Collins and Gerber on
the fiscal policies of the federal government, including taxes and spending, have an overall
adverse effect on the budgetary policies of subnational governments. For instance, John Petersen
5
made the following observation not too long ago: "Local governments at the bottom of the fiscal
food chain should be more worried about the effect of decentralization on income" (Pagano &
Jocelyn, 2000). As a result, the consequences of budgetary measures on local authorities have
typically eluded examination due to the decentralization of the federal and state governments.
According to the writers of this article, with reference to the NCSL (National Conference
of State Legislatures). The decentralization of the federal government is prompting states to
reevaluate their conceptions of the division of responsibilities for taxes and services between the
state government and various levels of local government, including district and municipal
governments. According to Pagano and Jocelyn (2000), nonprofit organizations are very likely to
receive funding from the federal government. This fact raises the question of whether the use of
block grants to fund nonprofit organizations will support optimal effectiveness and equity in the
delivery of social services. According to Pagano and Jocelyn (2000), more and more municipal
governments are pressing state and federal lawmakers for the ability to levy local taxes on
various possibilities.
The authors argue that while the decentralization effect of local government has not been
defined, their study assumes that any responsibility transferred from the federal or state
governments to local governments is likely to fall on the universal governments. This assumption
is made even though the decentralization effect of local government has not been defined. The
writers refer to the universal government as the municipalities (also known as cities) and districts
throughout their work. In addition, the authors provide their recommendations and investigate
how counties and cities could react to their financial demands which are connected to extended
or expanded responsibility by concentrating on two potential financial solutions. The authors
6
argued that if they were required to fund more services, county and city governments could
respond by increasing the revenue burdens on local taxpayers.
The authors also suggested that one possible answer would be to use the most recent
balances as the source for the entirety of the fund. However, Collins and Gerber (2006) contend
that state administrations stand in the way of equal access to federal funding and that this is a
compromise on their part. For instance, the ability to make political decisions has been
decentralized from the national government to the state governments via the use of essential tools
such as block grants. The authors assert that by delegating certain tasks to the federal
governments and controlling the increased freedom of state governments in policy
implementation and design, block grants, the security program, innovation, and experimentation,
they will be able to reach their targets. According to Collins and Gerber (2006), this strategy was
consciously used in federally financed redistributive programs at various points in history. They
also note that the primary administration of key redistributive policies being delegated to the
states in the form of fixed-rate grants has a significant impact on the efficiency of the
administration of policies, which can be analyzed in terms of either efficiency or equity. This is
something that they note as having a significant impact (Collins & Brian 2006).
According to the authors, the most significant challenge is determining whether the
devolution of management responsibilities might lead to more effective management programs.
They contend that achieving a fair administration will not be possible if state administrations
continue to systematically deny or limit access to federal money. The equity component of the
bulk grant management program may be easily evaluated via the use of a basic method, which is
the assessment of relative access to program money. Because of this finding, the authors provide
an analytical framework to examine how the functioning of intergovernmental grant programs is
7
impacted by a variety of administrative structures used by state authorities. The authors have
created a paradigm that connects the accessibility of funds from federal fixed-rate grants to the
transaction costs that relate to the awarding of intergovernmental grants.
The expenses of the transaction must be borne by both the state administrations, who
fulfill the role of contract representatives for the federal administrations and the municipalities,
which submit requests for financial assistance. Evidence that the administrative capabilities of
the local government and the choices taken by the institutions of the state impact the outstanding
cost of the grant-related transaction and, as a result, the access to federal money is the primary
purpose of the authors' techniques (Collins & Brian 2006). However, potential grantees with the
greatest needs and the fewest provisions of the federal administration would be able to benefit
even without the fact that second-level organizations help keep transaction costs down. For
instance, it is very necessary to carry out extra comparative institutional analysis in order to
determine whether there are many other methods for the administration of government block
grants (Collins & Brian 2006).
The intended goal of this article is, from the author's perspective, to get an understanding
of the significance of the decisions that may be made about institutional designs across all states
that are pertinent to the question of fairness in block grant programs that are handled. As stated in
Proverb 19:21, "Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that
prevails." As a Christian, you need to be aware that the Lord is the most reliable advice when it
comes to making decisions about design plans.
References
8
Collins, B. K., & Gerber, B. J. (2006). Redistributive Policy and Devolution: Is State
Administration a Road Block (Grant) to Equitable Access to Federal Funds? Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 16(4), 613–632.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3840381
Herbert, L., Killough, L. N., & Steiss, A. W. (1984). Governmental Accounting and Control.
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Pagano, M. A., & Johnson, J. M. (2000). Life at the Bottom of the Fiscal Food Chain: Examining
City and County Revenue Decisions. Publius, 30(1), 159–170.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3331126
Proverbs 19:21. (2022). BibleGateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?
search=Proverbs%2019%3A21&version=NIV (Original work published 1769)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
