No abstract

Government borrowing occurs whenever the government forgoes control over some future flow of resources or benefits in order to acquire resources for current use. Based on this definition, the authors identify several ways that state governments borrow, which include widely recognized forms of debt as well as types of actions that are less transparent. Case studies for Connecticut, Illinois, and New York document the large amounts of future commitments that these states have taken on to cover operating deficits over the last decade. The authors conclude by evaluating the usefulness of current financial statements for assessing the amount of borrowing that states have done to support current services and suggest areas for which additional information is needed.

Budgeting and accounting professionals, as well as other interested parties, are currently examining ways to improve governmental capital budgeting and reporting. Although progress has been made, major policy issues are still being analyzed and debated. This article provides an overview of current practices and the major policy issues that are being addressed. The discussion incorporates related ideas and observations made by Jesse Burkhead four decades ago. The author concludes that many of Burkhead's insights in the area of capital budgeting and reporting are still relevant and useful today.

The connection between public administration scholarship and practice has been a challenge since the establishment of the profession of public administration. This raises several key issues such as whether practitioners have access to scholarly research, whether scholars are addressing topics that the practitioners are interested in, and the extent to which the practitioners can understand and apply material they have acquired from research articles. This article uses the results from a panel discussion with local government managers and information from leading public administration journals to explore the causes of the divide and offer options to help bridge the gap.

The State of Texas's local government investment pool, TexPool, has faced major challenges in the 1990s. This article provides an overview of two major events involving TexPool: (1) a $2.2 billion “run” on the pool in 1994 and (2) the out‐sourcing of TexPool's functions in 1997. The article describes these events and analyzes potential implications for other state‐administered investment pools. The article addresses issues such as: (1) the need to develop investment policies and practices that are suitable for a particular pool's objectives and purpose, (2) whether a state government has a responsibility to ensure that participants in a state investment pool do not incur losses, (3) the possible implications of having an elected official as the person with primary responsibility for overseeing the pool, and (4) concerns related to the outsourcing of state investment pools. This article is intended to encourage debate on the policies and practices of state investment pools, which currently are serving more than 15,000 local governments in the United States.