Environmental Spending and IGR Growth by Florida County Type
This empirical study examines environmental spending and intergovernmental revenue growth (IGR) across Florida county governments. Using data from the Florida County Government Survey (n = 60 counties), the study addresses three research questions: whether coastal counties spend more on environmental protection than non-coastal counties, whether IGR growth differs by county type (metro/suburban/rural), and whether that relationship changes when controlling for political orientation. Independent samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and ANCOVA are employed. Results show that coastal counties spend significantly more on environmental protection than non-coastal counties. However, no statistically significant difference in IGR growth rate was found by county type, even after adjusting for political orientation. The findings offer practical insights for state and local policymakers seeking to improve environmental funding and reduce dependence on intergovernmental transfers.
- Introduction: Decentralization, fiscal challenges, and Florida study goals
- Literature Review: IGR definitions, environmental attitudes, and revenue factors
- Methods: Florida county survey data and statistical test design
- Results: T-test, ANOVA, and ANCOVA findings across county types
- Discussion: Findings interpreted against prior literature on counties
- Conclusion: Policy implications for local and state governments
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly aligns each research question with a specific statistical method (t-test for RQ3, ANOVA for RQ4, ANCOVA for RQ5), making the analytical logic transparent and easy to follow.
- The literature review is well-organized into distinct thematic sections — defining intergovernmental revenue, factors influencing environmental spending, and factors shaping revenue mobilization — each directly motivating the empirical analysis.
- The discussion contextualizes quantitative findings against prior literature, offering substantive explanations (e.g., FDI-driven coastal revenue independence) for results that diverge from established studies.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the use of covariate control in ANCOVA to isolate the effect of county type on IGR growth while accounting for political orientation. This technique goes beyond simple group comparisons and reflects graduate-level quantitative reasoning, showing the student's ability to test whether a known confounding variable changes the main finding.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a conventional empirical research structure: an abstract summarizes all findings upfront; the introduction frames the policy problem and states research questions; the literature review provides theoretical grounding; the methods section specifies variables and tests; the results section presents statistical output with interpretation; and the discussion and conclusion connect findings to literature and policy implications. This organization makes it a clear model of applied public administration research.
Introduction
The past few decades have seen a trend towards decentralization of revenue-raising and spending responsibilities from the national government to subnational levels — that is, state and local governments (Minassian, 2003). Several reasons account for this trend. Minassian (2003) argues that decentralization enhances more participatory and democratic forms of government, making political leaders at the subnational level more accountable and responsive to the people who elected them. When revenue-raising and spending decisions are made at the subnational level, elected leaders have more room to influence the composition, quality, and quantity of public goods and services in line with the needs of their electorate (Minassian, 2003). Proponents also argue that such decentralization fosters efficiency in the allocation of resources (Minassian, 2003).
At the same time, decentralization presents significant challenges. Subnational governments have an edge in the provision of public services, while the central government has an edge in revenue-raising, as it has access to more productive revenue sources (Kim & Smoke, 2001). Thus, subnational governments face a mismatch between available local resources and the expenditure that the public expects them to undertake (Kim & Smoke, 2001). Further, subnational jurisdictions have different revenue-raising capacities (Kim & Smoke, 2001). If decentralized units were to operate exclusively on locally generated revenues, less wealthy states and counties would be disadvantaged and may be unable to provide essential services and infrastructure to their electorate (Kim & Smoke, 2001). This raises equity concerns and affects the efficient use and allocation of public resources. Additionally, due to limitations in revenue-raising sources, subnational units may not adequately meet basic national priority needs such as sanitation, roads, education, and health, which may ultimately increase poverty rates (Kim & Smoke, 2001).
All these challenges point to the need for subnational governments to broaden their revenue sources in order to more effectively meet the needs of their electorate. According to the United States Census Bureau, one way subnational jurisdictions can increase their revenue is by growing their intergovernmental revenue (US Census Bureau, n.d.).
Using the State of Florida as a case study, this study seeks to determine the factors influencing intergovernmental revenue growth in county governments. The findings will go a long way towards informing policy at both the state and national government levels. Policymakers will gain clearer insights on where to focus their efforts to ensure that counties advance at a comparable pace in intergovernmental growth and are able to meet basic national priority needs. The national priority need selected for analysis in this study is environmental sustainability.
The study seeks to answer three research questions:
RQ3: Is there a significant difference in the percent of total spending that is environmental spending between coastal counties and non-coastal counties?
RQ4: Is there a significant difference in the intergovernmental revenue growth rate (IGR) based on county type (metro/suburban/rural)?
RQ5: Controlling for political orientation, is there a significant difference in the intergovernmental revenue growth rate (IGR) based on county type (metro/suburban/rural)?
References
Baskaran, T., & Hessami, Z. (2015). Political alignment and intergovernmental transfers in parliamentary systems: Evidence from Germany. Public Choice.
Bonnie, R., Diamond, E., & Rowe, E. (2020). Understanding rural attitudes towards the environment and conservation in America. Duke Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
Dewees, S., Lobao, L., & Swanson, L. E. (2003). Local economic development in an age of devolution: The question of rural localities. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 182–206.
Foster, R. H., & McBeth, M. (1996). Urban-rural influences in US environmental and economic development policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 12(4), 387–397.
Kim, Y., & Smoke, P. (2001). The role and challenges of intergovernmental fiscal transfers in Asia. Asian Development Bank.
Minassian, T. (2003). Intergovernmental fiscal relations in a macroeconomic perspective: An overview. International Monetary Fund.
Salka, W. M. (2003). Determinants of countywide voting behaviour on environmental ballot measures: 1990–2000. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 253–277.
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Chapter 4: Revenue. Author. https://www2.census.gov/govs/class06/ch_4.pdf
Veneri, P., & Ruiz, V. (2016). Urban-rural population growth linkages: Evidence from OECD TL3 regions. Journal of Regional Science, 56(1), 3–24.
Zhang, J., Qu, Y., Zhang, Y., Li, X., & Miao, X. (2019). Effects of FDI on the efficiency of government expenditure on environmental protection under fiscal decentralization: A spatial econometric analysis for China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1), 1–19.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.