東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

The effects of fiscal decentralizati...

Yamoah, Afia Boadiwaa.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The effects of fiscal decentralization on economic growth in United States counties.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The effects of fiscal decentralization on economic growth in United States counties./
作者:	Yamoah, Afia Boadiwaa.
面頁冊數:	115 p.
附註:	Adviser: David S. Kraybill.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International67-11A.
標題:	Economics, Agricultural. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3241713
ISBN:	9780542966132

The effects of fiscal decentralization on economic growth in United States counties.
Yamoah, Afia Boadiwaa.

The effects of fiscal decentralization on economic growth in United States counties. - 115 p.

Adviser: David S. Kraybill.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Ohio State University, 2007.

This study investigates the effects of decentralization on economic growth in U.S. counties. Decentralization has given counties the added responsibility of economic growth and welfare administration. Counties use various strategies to attract and retain businesses so they can provide income and jobs for residents. Localization of economic development and decentralization of welfare programs may have an effect on economic growth of county governments. County governments in the U.S. may act strategically by setting lower welfare benefit levels, and offering business incentives to new and existing firms, thus resulting in the possible under-provision of local public services and a decrease in economic growth.

ISBN: 9780542966132Subjects--Topical Terms:

626648
Economics, Agricultural.

The effects of fiscal decentralization on economic growth in United States counties.
LDR:03311nam 2200313 a 45 001 971681
005 20110927
008 110927s2007 eng d
020 $a 9780542966132
035 $a (UMI)AAI3241713
035 $a AAI3241713
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Yamoah, Afia Boadiwaa. $3 1295713
245 1 4 $a The effects of fiscal decentralization on economic growth in United States counties.
300 $a 115 p.
500 $a Adviser: David S. Kraybill.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-11, Section: A, page: 4281.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Ohio State University, 2007.
520 $a This study investigates the effects of decentralization on economic growth in U.S. counties. Decentralization has given counties the added responsibility of economic growth and welfare administration. Counties use various strategies to attract and retain businesses so they can provide income and jobs for residents. Localization of economic development and decentralization of welfare programs may have an effect on economic growth of county governments. County governments in the U.S. may act strategically by setting lower welfare benefit levels, and offering business incentives to new and existing firms, thus resulting in the possible under-provision of local public services and a decrease in economic growth.
520 $a Key objectives of this study are to construct a measure of decentralization and investigate whether decentralization leads to differences in economic growth in U.S. counties. A simultaneous equation framework is used to explore the relationship between decentralization and economic growth. Economic growth is measured by population and employment growth. An interaction term is constructed between decentralization and rural status to verify whether decentralization's effects differ by rural status of counties.
520 $a County level data from forty-six states in the U.S. are used in the analyses. The hypothesis that the effect of decentralization on rural counties is different from that of urban counties is tested. The hypothesis that decentralization has a negative effect on economic growth of U.S. counties is also tested. Other hypotheses that are tested are that population growth and employment growth each has a positive effect on the other.
520 $a The results reveal that population and employment growth both positively affect each other. Decentralization has a significant effect on population growth but no effect on employment growth. Both rural and urban counties show a negative relation with population growth so the hypothesis that decentralization results in lower economic growth (in terms of population) is accepted. Since population decreases might have a stronger effect on the economy of rural counties, a spatial marginalization hypothesis is accepted with caution. Crime rates and population density have a significant effect on economic growth but amenities and income show no effect. All other variables show mixed effects on growth.
590 $a School code: 0168.
650 4 $a Economics, Agricultural. $3 626648
650 4 $a Economics, General. $3 1017424
690 $a 0501
690 $a 0503
710 2 0 $a The Ohio State University. $3 718944
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 67-11A.
790 $a 0168
790 1 0 $a Kraybill, David S., $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2007
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3241713