Spending in the States: a Test of Six Models

Abstract

T HE STATE spending policy process has been examined from a number of alternative theoretical perspectives in recent years. Several analysts have attempted to apply the incrementalist model of Davis, Dempster, and Wildavsky (1966) to expenditure decisionmaking in the states (e.g., Sharkansky and Turnbull 1969; Sharkansky 1968; Stutzman 1981). Others, working in the comparative state policy tradition, have examined the impact of state resources, constituencies, and political processes on state spending levels (e.g., Dawson and Robinson 1963; Dye 1966; Sharkansky 1971). Unfortunately, these analyses have not taken us very far in understanding the state spending process. Several limitations in the existing literature account for this lack of progress. First, with a few important exceptions (e.g., Tucker 1981; Marquette and Hinckley 1981), most of these studies have employed cross-sectional analysis, the limitations of which are well documented (Gray 1976). Additionally, the incremental model has been examined in only a few states: Massachusetts (Tucker 1981), Michigan (Stutzman 1981), and Wisconsin and Georgia (Sharkansky and Turnbull 1969). This raises important questions about the generalizability of these findings. Finally, a number of analysts have recently suggested that research effort on the spending process be directed toward competitive testing of the several models and further theoretical integration so that the models might better reflect the complexity inherent in the expenditure process (e.g., Hoole, Job, and Tucker 1976: 295; Ostrom 1978; Hoole, Handley, and Ostrom 1979). Unfortunately, such competitive testing and theoretical integration are almost absent in studies of the state spending process. In trying marginally to improve the state of the state expenditure literature, this paper takes a rather limited objective. By testing through longitudinal analyses a number of simple models of the state spending processs for all of the states, we hope to lay the groundwork for futher theoretical integration of the models. Our interest in comparative longitudinal assessment of several simple models arises from more than the simple lack of such studies across the fifty states. In one of the few comparative assessments of simple spending models, Hoole, Handley, and Ostrom (1979) tested five models of United Nations expenditure processes. Contrary to expectations, they found that they could not distinguish among the several simple models. Simply put,