No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Neglected Aspects of Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Extract
Among the luxuries that Americans indulge in during the current prosperity and high-income level is complacent disregard of the more serious aspects of intergovernmental fiscal relations. Ominous cracks and crevices in the fiscal structure temporarily close during a period when the price can be paid for disregarding them. A depression, however, uncovers already existing problems and aggrevates preëxisting evils.
To canvass interlevel financial relations at a time when emergencies did not force impromptu solutions was the purpose of a round-table discussion of the American Political Science Association, convening at Cleveland, December 27 and 28, 1946. Since multiple taxation and the need for tax coördination have been examined—and will continue to be surveyed—by economists, the round-table's attention was directed rather to aspects of the problem which are neglected when intergovernmental relations are viewed solely or primarily in terms of taxation. The round-table discussion of other aspects is here reported by its chairman, Wylie Kilpatrick, of the Governments Division, U. S. Bureau of the Census. Participants included Charles S. Ascher, of the National Housing Agency; Hubert R. Gallagher, associate director of the Council of State Governments; W. Brooke Graves, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress; I. M. Labovitz, Fiscal Division, U. S. Bureau of the Budget; and Lewis B. Sims, Governments Division, U. S. Bureau of the Census.
The shifting content of interlevel fiscal relations, changing with different periods, requires a re-survey of the current picture to prevent irrelevancy arising from considering facts which, however much they once were true, no longer obtain today.
- Type
- American Government and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1947
References
1 See Kilpatrick, Wylie, State Supervision of Local Finance (Public Administration Service, 1941)Google Scholar.
2 Council of State Governments, State-Local Relations (1946)Google Scholar.
3 This viewpoint is illustrated by the comment of the chairman of the California Legislative Committee on Highways, Streets, and Bridges. He concluded that: “Our studies and many hearings have shown us that no satisfactory approach to this extremely difficult and expensive task can be made until we learn to look at our road plant as one vast, integrated, and interconnected system of highways, streets, and bridges which provides all our people with a unified transportation service. This service does not stop when one of its vehicles reaches the limits of a city or county line. This concept does not mean that one jurisdiction should be substituted for our four levels of government when we turn to the problem of whether the federal government, the state, the counties, or the cities should have the administrative responsibility for constructing or maintaining a link in our road system. It means that all levels of government should work together in mutual confidence and cooperation.”
4 Committee on Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations, U. S. Treasury, Federal, State, and Local Government Fiscal Relations, Sen. Doc. No. 69, 1943Google Scholar.
5 Interpretations and suggestions in the foregoing article are those of the participants in the panel session and are not to be imputed to the organizations with which panel members are associated.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.