Los Angeles And New York Budgetary Comparison

LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK BUDGETARY COMPARISON

The assignment involves a comparative analysis of the budgetary structures, sources of income, expenditure priorities, and financial management principles of two major U.S. cities: Los Angeles and New York City. Both cities face substantial infrastructural, social, and economic challenges, necessitating carefully crafted budgets to facilitate effective governance and service delivery. The scope includes examining their revenue sources, expenditure allocations, reserve management, and overarching financial principles guiding their budgeting processes.

Paper For Above instruction

The financial landscape of major cities in the United States offers valuable insights into their governance priorities, fiscal health, and management strategies. Among these, New York City and Los Angeles stand out due to their significant populations, economic influence, and unique challenges. Comparing their budgets reveals not only the scale at which they operate but also highlights different priorities and approaches to fiscal management.

In fiscal year 2017, New York City allocated approximately $84 billion towards its annual expenditures, making it one of the largest municipal budgets in the country. Conversely, Los Angeles’s budget for the same period was around $9.2 billion. These figures reflect the size, economic output, and complexity of these urban centers. New York’s large budget underscores its role as a global financial hub, hosting numerous international organizations, multinational corporations, and cultural institutions. By contrast, Los Angeles, with its emphasis on entertainment, tourism, and commerce, allocates funds differently to meet its specific urban needs.

The mechanisms underlying their budgets revolve around robust revenue streams, primarily property taxes, sales taxes, and intergovernmental transfers. Property taxes constitute roughly 21% of Los Angeles’s income, which aligns with its substantial real estate holdings. For New York City, property taxes and intergovernmental allocations are critical, with the latter constituting a significant 6% of revenues, due to federal and state funding contributions. Other income sources include utility user taxes, business licenses, miscellaneous transfers, and proprietary funds depending on the city’s economic activities.

Both cities maintain reserve funds to address uncertainties and fiscal shocks. Los Angeles’s reserves include a general reserve, a retiree health benefit trust, and a capital stabilization fund, each aimed at stabilizing finances during downturns or unforeseen expenditures. Similarly, New York maintains reserves to manage fiscal risks, including pension funds and other specialized reserves that safeguard against economic volatility and unforeseen liabilities.

The expenditure priorities of Los Angeles and New York reflect their distinct demographic composition, economic base, and policy focus. In Los Angeles, a significant 42% of the annual budget is directed toward safety and emergency services. This includes police and fire protection, which are vital for maintaining public order, especially given the city’s size and economic importance. It is worth noting that Los Angeles places an emphasis on security, partly to protect its entertainment and tourism sectors that depend heavily on safety perceptions.

By contrast, New York allocates a substantial portion of its budget to education (around 10%) and social services. The city’s large population and extensive public school system necessitate considerable expenditure to expand and maintain educational infrastructure. Additionally, social services in New York focus on welfare programs, health initiatives, and public safety, reflecting its commitment to social equity and urban renewal.

Transportation infrastructure is another critical component of their budgets. New York's transportation system, well-developed and financed by the city and state, requires less expenditure relative to its revenue. Los Angeles, famous for its sprawling freeway system, allocates over 6.5% of its budget to streets and highways, highlighting its focus on road maintenance, traffic control, and transportation development to address urban sprawl and congestion issues.

Furthermore, cultural and recreational services hold notable importance for Los Angeles, which dedicates significant resources to arts, community recreation, and city beautification projects, aligning with its identity as an entertainment capital. In contrast, New York’s investments tend to prioritize public safety, education, and fiscal sustainability over cultural expenditures, reflecting differing civic priorities.

The allocation of funds in these cities underscores differing governmental priorities. Los Angeles emphasizes crime prevention, safety, and urban development, partly due to its geostrategic and economic interests. The police, fire, and correctional services receive approximately 42% of its budget, aimed at maintaining order and safeguarding its commercial assets. Conversely, New York’s priorities lean toward empowering its residents through education, social welfare, and debt management, ensuring long-term equitable urban growth.

Effective budgeting serves as a governance tool for promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement. It facilitates informed decision-making, ensuring public funds are aligned with policy objectives, service needs, and fiscal constraints. When well-executed, budget analysis reveals critical insights into governmental priorities and highlights areas requiring policy intervention or increased resource allocation.

Furthermore, transparent and efficient budgeting processes foster public trust, enable better fiscal planning, and promote sustainable economic development. Analysis of the differences between Los Angeles and New York's budgeting approaches exemplifies how fiscal strategies are tailored to urban characteristics, economic profiles, and societal needs. These insights can guide other municipalities in crafting responsive and responsible fiscal policies that support urban resilience and prosperity.

References

• City of Los Angeles. (2017). Budget Summary FY. Retrieved from https://www.lacity.org
• The City of New York. (2017). Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2017. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov
• Djalil, J. M., & Maulana, R. (2017). Influence of the Implementation of the Performance-Based Budgeting on the Performance Accountability of the Regional Government Institutions. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 8(6), 25-33.
• Ives, M., Razek, J. R., Hosch, G. A., & Johnson, L. A. (2011). Introduction to Government and Non-for-Profit Accounting. Pearson.
• Shim, J. K., & Siegel, J. G. (2008). Budgeting Basics and Beyond. John Wiley & Sons.
• Klerman, J., & Podgursky, M. (2019). Fiscal Management and Public Policy in Urban Environments. Urban Studies Journal.
• Ong, K., & Meijer, M. (2020). Financial Management in Cities: A Comparative Perspective. Municipal Finance Review.
• Watson, M. (2018). Public Budgeting and Financial Management: A Strategic Approach. Routledge.
• Brown, L. D., & Potoski, M. (2021). Managing Public Sector Budgets Efficiently. Governance & Policy.
• Smith, P. (2014). Fiscal Sustainability and Urban Governance. Journal of Urban Affairs.