No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Voluntary Effort as a Tax Substitute in the Revenue-Sharing Allocation Formula*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2015
Extract
As a cost reducing measure, it is appropriate that local government officials use voluntary labor in their programs supplying public services to constituencies. The Revenue-Sharing Act of 1972, however, may actually serve as a disincentive to this use of voluntary effort, because the revenue-sharing allocation formula may discriminate against communities using voluntary labor. Stinson and Stam state that “the current allocation procedure (of revenue sharing) fails to take into account the cost of inputs which are not purchased with tax revenues” [7, p. 11]. They further suggest that “the most important of these neglected costs is the opportunity cost of voluntary labor” [7, p. 11]. Hitzhusen states, “to the extent the smaller communities substitute … volunteer for paid effort, then tax effort, and thus their revenue-sharing payment, is decreased” [2, p. 10]. The problem is one of examining alternative ways of modifying the present revenue-sharing allocation formula to include the value of voluntary effort. Providing fire protection services to rural areas by employing voluntary labor is the example used here.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1976
Footnotes
*
This paper is based on research conducted in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at the University of Tennessee.
References
[1] Department of Treasury, Office of Revenue Sharing. Data Elements for Entitlement Period 5,
Washington, D.C., October 1974.Google Scholar
[2] Hitzhusen, Fred J. “Federal Revenue Sharing: Some Implications for Rural Communities,” unpublished paper, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1974.Google Scholar
[3] Insurance Services Office. “Specifications for Rural Fire Departments: General,” Nashville, Tennessee: January 1973.Google Scholar
[4] National League of Cities. The Grading of Municipal Fire Protection Facilities: Its Relationship to Fire Insurance and to the Municipality's Fire Protection Policy,
Washington, D.C.: July 1967.Google Scholar
[5] Nathan, Richard P., Manvel, Allen D., and Calkins., Susannah E.
Monitoring Revenue Sharing,
Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institutions, 1975.Google Scholar
[6] Public Technology, Inc. “New Provisions of the ISO Grading Schedule,” Washington, D.C.: March 1974.Google Scholar
[7] Stinson, Thomas F. and Stam, Jerome M.. “Voluntary Labor and Nonmetropolitan Government: Some Initial Considerations,” Paper delivered to the Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, August 18-21, 1974, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
[8] The University of Tennessee, Center for Business and Economic Research. Tennessee Statistical Abstract 1974,
Knoxville, Tennessee: April 1974.Google Scholar