Do budget maneuvers reduce future budget resiliency? Evidence from states following the great recession

Conventional wisdom suggests budget maneuvers threaten long‐term structural balance because they transfer resources from the future to the present by non‐transparent means. Budget maneuvers remain poorly understood in part because they are more difficult to observe than traditional tax and expenditure changes to remedy budget deficits. In this research, a taxonomy of budget maneuvers influenced by the recent work of the Volcker Alliance and other public budgeting scholars is used to create an original tally of maneuvers used by U.S. state governments during the Great Recession. Ten states implemented more than half of documented budget maneuver use during that era, while incidence of maneuver use for the remaining 40 states is largely limited to transfers of balances from cash funds. This supports NASBO's contention that maneuvers are not a primary budget‐balancing instrument for most states. This research then presents the postrecession trajectories of four states that relied heavily on maneuvers—California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Wisconsin. While California and Wisconsin largely curtailed the use of budget maneuvers after the Great Recession, Connecticut and Illinois continued to implement them as they remained mired in subsequent budget crises.