Search results

After a brief review of the forces which shaped the general revenue sharing legislation, this article investigates thoroughly various pro and con arguments about the program. While there may be a variety of theoretical "pro" arguments, the primary argument in favor of general revenue sharing is that is is politically popular with the public officials who are recipients of the funds. This article also explores the arguments that general rev enue sharing leads to increased citizen participation and fewer administrative requirements for recipient units, and that it increases the strength of the central administration. It urges caution in interpreting the preliminary research results which are available. On the "con" side, it considers a variety of theoretical arguments, but the main emphasis must be on the inequities in the existing legislation. These include the reduction in categorical aid programs, the failure to provide adequately for the largest cities, the inapplicability of fiscal crisis arguments, and the absence of important "side benefits"—institution building, for example—from general revenue sharing legislation. Finally, there is a discussion of the discriminatory provisions and enforcement procedures of the legislation. The dilemma which revenue sharing and the former categorical grant programs were designed to meet is best resolved by strengthening and expanding the block grant approach to federal aid.