Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Finance Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gamkhar, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Is the Response of State and Local Highway Spending Symmetric to Increases and Decreases in Federal Highway Grants?

Shama Gamkhar

University of Texas at Austin

Do states and localities, when faced with cuts in federal highway grants, attempt to maintain spending on existing highway projects with own sources of funding? Current state and local government highway spending is postulated here to respond to federal highway grants of the current fiscal year and up to 2 previous fiscal years. The results of this study provide some evidence of asymmetry. When current federal highway grants are increased, their immediate effect on state and local government highway spending is negligible; their impact on spending comes in later years. In contrast, cutbacks in current federal highway grants result in a drop in current state and local government highway spending. The response of state and local government highway spending to lagged federal highway grants is statistically significant and symmetric with respect to increases and decreases in these grants.

Public Finance Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, 3-25 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/109114210002800101


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Public Finance ReviewHome page
S. Lago-Penas
Local Governments' Asymmetric Reactions to Grants: Causes and Consequences
Public Finance Review, March 1, 2008; 36(2): 219 - 242.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
PubliusHome page
S. Gamkhar and H. Ali
Political Economy of Grant Allocations: The Case of Federal Highway Demonstration Grants
Publius, January 1, 2008; 38(1): 1 - 21.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PubliusHome page
C. Volden
Intergovernmental Grants: A Formal Model of Interrelated National and Subnational Political Decisions
Publius, March 2, 2007; (2007) pjl022v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Public Works Management PolicyHome page
J. E. Ryu
Fiscal Impacts of an Innovative Highway Financing Alternative on State Highway Expenditures: The Case of Federal Assistance Funds in the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Programs
Public Works Management Policy, July 1, 2006; 11(1): 33 - 48.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Public Finance ReviewHome page
J. P. Cohen
Reciprocal State and Local Airport Spending Spillovers and Symmetric Responses to Cuts and Increases in Federal Airport Grants
Public Finance Review, January 1, 2002; 30(1): 41 - 55.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
S. Gamkhar and S.-C. Sim
The Impact of Federal Alcohol and Drug Abuse Block Grants on State and Local Government Substance Abuse Program Expenditures: The Role of Federal Oversight
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, December 1, 2001; 26(6): 1261 - 1290.
[Abstract] [PDF]