"There is a growing awareness, however, that levels of expenditure alone are not an adequate measure of public policy outcomes. Sharkansky has shown, for example, that levels of expenditure and levels of actual service are seldom correlated; presumably, some states are able to reach given service levels with much less expenditure than others."
Jack Walker in this passage from him essay is that the amount of money being put in for each state does not always add up with what each state gets from it. He says how Sharkansky shows that a lot of times the levels of expenditure are not equal to the amount of levels of actual service the state relieves. He also says that some states are able to reach their need in service levels using less money than other states.
This passage stood out to me because it's one thing I do not agree with what this state does. I feel as the state takes more money (ei. From taxes) then what is actually needed. They could probably find a way to manage getting the NECCESSARY services done with less than the amount they take. Another issue is having higher expenditures because of states getting or providing extra services which are not even needed. It also makes me wonder, if some states can manage to get their required services on a lower budget why can't all states manage a lower budget? Then again, location, population, economic status ect. must have an effect on the amount the state needs. There can be many different things that play a role with the amount needed for a state to maintain its self but I still believe they take more then they need.
No comments:
Post a Comment