Abstract

This paper investigates the extent to which state and local government capital spending in the United States can be an effective vehicle for countercyclical policy. Policy responses to recent cyclical downturns have included a variety of policies to encourage greater spending at the state and local level, including efforts to lower borrowing costs for these governments, but the effectiveness of these policies remains unclear. To examine the effectiveness of state-local capital spending as a countercyclical tool, I use a unique data set consisting of open-ended interviews with state and local budget officers and a survey of state governments. I find that at present, there are significant barriers preventing countercyclical state-local capital spending. First, interventions to stimulate capital spending via easing financing conditions are likely limited by two factors: some governments use minimal amounts of borrowing to finance capital spending, and for governments that do rely primarily on borrowing, capital spending appears insensitive to interest rates. Second, state and local capital spending decisions involve substantial lags, making it a poor vehicle for countercyclical fiscal policy even in the absence of financing constraints. Third, state-local budget officials do not view capital spending as a tool for economic stabilization.

摘要

本文研究了美国州和地方政府资本支出在多大程度上可以成为反周期政策的有效手段。针对近期周期性低迷的政策回应包括各种政策，以鼓励州和地方政府增加支出，包括努力降低这些政府的借贷成本，但这些政策的有效性尚不清楚。为了检验州地方资本支出作为反周期工具的有效性，我使用了一个独特的数据集，该数据集包括对州和地方预算官员的不限成员名额采访以及对州政府的调查。我发现，目前，阻止逆周期的地方政府资本支出存在重大障碍。第一的，通过宽松的融资条件刺激资本支出的干预措施可能受到两个因素的限制：一些政府使用最少的借款来为资本支出提供资金，而对于主要依靠借款的政府而言，资本支出似乎对利率不敏感。其次，州和地方的资本支出决策存在重大滞后，即使在没有融资约束的情况下，它也是反周期财政政策的不良手段。第三，州地方预算官员并不将资本支出视为稳定经济的工具。州和地方的资本支出决策涉及重大的滞后，即使在没有融资约束的情况下，它也是反周期财政政策的不良手段。第三，州地方预算官员并不将资本支出视为稳定经济的工具。州和地方的资本支出决策涉及重大滞后，即使在没有融资约束的情况下，它也是反周期财政政策的不良手段。第三，州地方预算官员并不将资本支出视为稳定经济的工具。