Two decades of research on municipal forecasting practice suggest that it is less advanced than other sectors. Moreover, local forecasters have a greater error tolerance than peers. Survey results of Florida's finance directors provide evidence of why this is the case. Unlike other levels of government, local finance officials receive limited political or bureaucratic scrutiny that might induce more accurate forecasts. The judgmental approaches deployed facilitate the downside bias typically found in municipal forecast practice which fosters surplus building, per Wildavsky's (1986) description of municipal budgeting. Absent greater senior management participation, it is unlikely municipal forecast practice will change. Findings also confirm that survey-based forecast research should account for respondents' stated levels of accuracy and their "risk adjusted" perceptions that account for a preferred downside bias of one to seven percent.
INTRODUCTION: THE LOCAL FORECASTING CONTEXTRevenue forecasting is a cornerstone of budget preparation. This is thought to be particularly true in local government (Wildavsky, 1986). Unlike their state and local peers which have more elastic revenue streams, local governments are still heavily reliant on ad valorem revenues which are only mildly elastic and frequently restrained by constitutional limits (Mikesell, 2003). Thus Wildavsky typifies the local budgeting process as top-down in character, in
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.