Traditional Funding Sources Research Articles

Research topics, author's specialty, and funding sources of articles published in an Emergency Medicine Journal

All original articles published in JACEP and Annals of Emergency Medicine in 1972, 1975, 1978, and 1981 were reviewed and classified according to topic, author's specialty, and funding source. The number of articles published in each category was as follows: toxicology, 44; emergency medical services (EMS), 34; general surgery, 31; emergency department, 28; educational techniques, 19; orthopedics, 17; cardiovascular disease, 15; pulmonary, 13; cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), 10; shock, 8; airway management, 8; and other, 71. The number of authors per article ranged from one to eight; the mean number of authors increased from 1.1 in 1972 to 2.6 in 1981 (P less than .001). The authors' backgrounds most frequently included were as follows: emergency medicine, 53.4%; surgery, 12.8%; internal medicine, 7.9%; and pediatrics, 1.6%. The percentage of articles with specific funding sources increased from 2.9% in 1972 to 25% in 1978, then decreased to 14.3% in 1981. The percentage for each funding source was as follows: government, 7.9%; industry, 2.0%; university, 3.3%; foundation, 2.0%; other, 1.0%; and none, 83.8%. This study demonstrates that there is a defined body of knowledge in emergency medicine, that emergency physicians author the majority of publications in this emergency medicine journal, and that emergency medicine is not supported by traditional funding sources.

Local Services in the New Federalism: Discussion

The paper by Hushak undertakes the difficult task of assessing the history of U.S. fiscal federalism and of addressing the implications of the current era of reduced state and federal intergovernment revenues for local government. It is hard to argue with the conclusion that property taxes, user charges, and bonds will remain the major source of local revenues, given the limitations on revenue options and local governmental needs for operating funds. However, continued reliance on these traditional funding sources does not preclude local governments from seeking to become more efficient and finding alternative mechanisms for providing local services. In developing the motivations for the current brand of New Federalism, Hushak argues that the reduction in federal intergovernmental aids is a response to excessive federal participation in financing local government services where the perceived marginal social value of output is less than the marginal social cost. This perception of a social product worth less than its marginal social cost, along with a general disenchantment with big government, certainly has contributed to the effort to curtail government. However, as these cuts work their way through the system, we are getting evidence that reality does not match perceptions. In response to the reduction in federal assistance, many states apparently are deciding that marginal social benefits of some government services are greater than their costs and they are raising taxes in order to continue providing services. Many local governments face similar situations. Hushak's presentation focuses on revenue sources and does not include information on local expenditures. The contrasting pattern of local government expenditures to the financing patterns provides a lesson in the issues and problems of the New Federalism experiment. Expenditure by a unit of government is a generally accepted proxy for the extent to which that level of government provides the service. Based on data from the Advisory Commission in Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), local governments were the dominant provider of fire protection, sewage, other sanitation, local parks and recreation, police, library, and local education. State government led in spending for higher education, corrections, highways, and noncash public welfare. The federal government was first in the domestic functions of natural resource development, water and air transport, special education, services, health, and cash public welfare. For these services, local government accounted for 43% of direct expenditures, state government for 27%, and federal government for 30% of the total. However, the responsibility for financing the provision of these services is often shared with other levels of government and with the imposition of varying degrees of control on the recipients. Based on ACIR data for seven major governmental functions, the federal government was the chief financier of natural resources, public welfare, housing and urban renewal, and air transportation. States were the most prominent funder of education services and highways. Funding of health and hospitals was shared about equally among all three levels. As the major beneficiary of federal and state grants, local governments were the sole or principal funding source of none of these particular governmental functions. Although data availability limited the number of functions to seven, a comparison of the total financing capacity with the expenditure capacity indicated that the federal government dominated in the financing role (40%) while local g vernment dominated in the direct expenditure role (47%) (ACIR). This discrepancy within a jurisdiction between the level of financial support provided and the level of responsibility for providing local services is at the crux of the problem with the New Federalism. States have long wanted the ability to decide how federal funds Daniel Otto is an assistant professor, Department of Economics, and an extension economist, Iowa State University.

Federal support of computer-based humanities research

OVER THE PAST TWENTY YEARS the computer system has established itself as an invaluable tool for scholars in nearly all fields of academic research including the arts and humanities. But the number of humanists using the computer has not grown as rapidly as the number of physicists and engineers, and computational analysis is not as allpervasive in the humanities as it is in more quantitative disciplines such as social science. There are many reasons for this lag in computer use. In the first place, much scholarly work in the arts and humanities is clearly not amenable to computer application. Also, many scholars are simply not intellectually or emotionally disposed toward using a technological device to aid them in their work. Despite these inhibitions, however, the computer has made a significant impact in some fields of humanities research, and many researchers would like to apply the computer to their work. But they are often frustrated in their attempts, for the machine is expensive to use and still difficult to approach. Traditional funding sources for support of this type of work are not well adapted to paying for computer time, for programming to develop new software, and for construction of the very large data bases which are often needed. Faced with this new factor in the conduct of humanities research, the academic community has naturally adjusted by looking outside for some support and, again naturally, the Federal government is one of the logical candidates to provide some help. A few basic problems appear to be nationwide and affect all computer-based humanities research. For example, there is the need for an adequate collection of machine-readable information. Whether it is collected together physically or not, this data must be accessible to researchers. The costly translation of written information into computer code is a heavy burden to the potential researcher. Similarly, there is a need for flexible, well documented and validated software. These programs need to be rugged enough to be used by noncomputer experts, and dearly enough documented to be understood by them. Finally, the humanities researcher needs access to reasonable computer resources at a reasonable price. Since his needs can be quite different from those of the dominant users on campus, he has often found that the system was simply not designed to do his work efficiently. A single humanities department, or even a collection of humanities departments on campus, usually cannot generate sufficient work to justify a system of its own. Even if it could, running computer centers is not necessarily a thrilling prospect for an English or history department. They must look to resource sharing, both on campus and through the wider community. Perhaps more than any other user area, the humanities research depends on a centralized resource. In this brief paper, I will discuss some ways in which the Federal government has moved in the past and may move in the future to meet some of these needs. In presenting this summary, I am not, of course, reflecting policy of the National Science Foundation or the Federal government in general, but am merely stating some of my observations and opinions. While I am disclaiming, I should also point out that I am not a humanist, but, rather, a worker in computer science. So it is with humility that I undertake to describe activity in the humanities. Perhaps my experience as a Washington bureaucrat