Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Economics Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: The environmental spending needs of Scotland’s local authorities
Author(s): King, David N
Pashley, Matthew
Ball, Robert
Keywords: Needs assessment
Local government
Highway maintenance
Fire services
Local finance Scotland
Local government Scotland
Government spending policy Scotland
Government spending policy England
Expenditures, Public Forecasting Scotland
Expenditures, Public Forecasting England
Issue Date: Apr-2007
Date Deposited: 16-Feb-2009
Citation: King DN, Pashley M & Ball R (2007) The environmental spending needs of Scotland’s local authorities. Local Government Studies, 33 (2), pp. 271-309.
Abstract: Scottish citizens benefit from 19% more public spending per head than English citizens. The ‘Barnett formula’ is slowly reducing the gap, but very little is known about the countries’ relative needs and hence about how far the present gap is defensible: the aim of this paper is to throw some light on the countries’ relative needs. We begin with the complex formulae that the Westminster government uses to assess the spending needs of English local authorities, and we use these English formulae to assess the needs of Scottish local authorities for three major blocks of local services. These formulae suggest that Scotland needs 6.4% more per head than England for environmental, protective and cultural services, 8.1% more for highway maintenance, and between 24.3% and 35.3% more for fire services. We also combine these results with those of two other papers concerned with local education and social services to show that these English formulae put Scotland’s per capita needs for local government services as a whole at about 6% above England’s. However, we then compare the relative needs of Scottish local authorities as assessed by the English formulae with their relative needs as assessed by the Scottish needs formulae that are currently used by Holyrood, and we find major differences. This suggests either that at least one country uses seriously flawed formulae to assess needs, or that the two countries have different conceptions of need.
DOI Link: 10.1080/03003930701200551
Rights: Published by Taylor & Francis (Routledge)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
EPC Highway Fire Text Dec 05.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version507.09 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.