Beyond the Great Divide: Federalism Concerns in Municipal Insolvency

Andrew B. Dawson
{"title":"Beyond the Great Divide: Federalism Concerns in Municipal Insolvency","authors":"Andrew B. Dawson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2741804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A growing number of municipalities are experiencing extreme financial distress, a problem which states have sought to address either under state law or with the aid of federal bankruptcy relief. There is an unresolved tension in how these two options interact. If a state chooses the bankruptcy option, do state laws nonetheless operate to protect the interests of certain classes of creditors? If a state does not use bankruptcy, might bankruptcy law nonetheless limit the state’s ability to adjust the municipality’s debts?These questions raise important federalism concerns that have frequently been analyzed under what this article calls the Great Divide Model of municipal bankruptcy federalism. This model formalistically allocates to Congress the exclusive power to adjust debts and to states the exclusive power to address local governance.This article challenges this model as inconsistent with the practical realities of municipal financial distress and its resolutions. Debt and governance often go hand in hand, both in causing and resolving financial distress. The federalism questions in municipal insolvency are better framed within a functionalist model of municipal bankruptcy, which involves analyzing the limits of the bankruptcy power in this realm and the state interests in local governance.","PeriodicalId":379216,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Public Spending (Comparative) (Topic)","volume":"2012 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Public Spending (Comparative) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2741804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A growing number of municipalities are experiencing extreme financial distress, a problem which states have sought to address either under state law or with the aid of federal bankruptcy relief. There is an unresolved tension in how these two options interact. If a state chooses the bankruptcy option, do state laws nonetheless operate to protect the interests of certain classes of creditors? If a state does not use bankruptcy, might bankruptcy law nonetheless limit the state’s ability to adjust the municipality’s debts?These questions raise important federalism concerns that have frequently been analyzed under what this article calls the Great Divide Model of municipal bankruptcy federalism. This model formalistically allocates to Congress the exclusive power to adjust debts and to states the exclusive power to address local governance.This article challenges this model as inconsistent with the practical realities of municipal financial distress and its resolutions. Debt and governance often go hand in hand, both in causing and resolving financial distress. The federalism questions in municipal insolvency are better framed within a functionalist model of municipal bankruptcy, which involves analyzing the limits of the bankruptcy power in this realm and the state interests in local governance.
超越鸿沟:市政破产中的联邦制问题
越来越多的市政当局正经历着极度的财政困境,各州都试图通过州法律或联邦破产救济来解决这个问题。这两种选择如何相互作用还存在一个未解决的矛盾。如果一个州选择破产,那么州法律是否仍然在保护某些债权人的利益?如果一个州不采用破产法,那么破产法是否会限制该州调整市政当局债务的能力?这些问题提出了重要的联邦制问题,本文经常在市政破产联邦制的大鸿沟模型下进行分析。这种模式形式化地将调整债务的独家权力分配给国会,并将解决地方治理的独家权力分配给各州。本文对这一模型提出了挑战,认为它与市政财政困境及其解决方案的实际现实不一致。债务和治理往往是齐头并进的,无论是造成还是解决财务困境。市政破产中的联邦制问题在市政破产的功能主义模型中得到更好的框架,该模型涉及分析破产权力在这一领域的限制以及国家在地方治理中的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信