BSU bulletin. Economy and Management
Bibliographic description:
, HOW THE TIEBOUT MODEL WORKS IN SIBERIA // BSU bulletin. Economy and Management. - 2015. №4. . - С. 28-35.
Title:
HOW THE TIEBOUT MODEL WORKS IN SIBERIA
Financing:
Codes:
UDK: 330.342.44
Annotation:
In contemporary world, there are global tendencies towards decentralization, and rapid growth in the autonomy and responsibilities of subnational governments. But what are the arguments for decentralization? Do these arguments work in all systems and circumstances? In Tiebout’s approach, different local governments suggest different tax- expenditure bundles and mobile citizens, the consumer-voters, are supposed to allocate themselves in accordance with their preferences. The Tiebout model is very influential in the contemporary public finance field, however, surprisingly, there have only been a few direct tests of this theory. This paper is devoted to the direct examination of the Tiebout model in the case of the Bayandai district (Irkutskaya oblast, Russia).
Keywords:
Decentralization, provision of public goods, residents, preferences, municipality.
List of references:
1.Bardhan P. Decentralization of Governance and Development // The Journal of Economic Perspectives — 2002 — Vol. 16, No.4 (Autumn, 2002) — P. 185-205.
2.Brueckner, J.K. A Test for Allocative Efficiency in the Local Public Sector // Journal of Public Economics — 1982 -№19(3) — P.311–31.
3.Epple, D. and Sieg, H. Estimating Equilibrium Models of Local Jurisdictions // Journal of Political Economy -1999 — 107(4) — P.645–81.
4.Gramlich, E.M., and Rubinfeld, D.L (1982) “Micro Estimates of Public Spending Demand Functions and Tests of the Tiebout and Median-Voter Hypotheses // Journal of Political Economy — 1982 — 90(3) — P.536–60.
5.Musgrave, R. The theory of public finance: A study in public economy — N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1958 — 628c.
6.Oates, W.E. Fiscal Federalism — Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972 — 256c.
7.Oates, W.E. The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis. // Journal of Political Economy — 1969 — 77(6) — P.957–71.
8.Oates, W.E. The Many Faces of the Tiebout Model // The Tiebout Model at Fifty: Essays in Public Economics in Honor of Wallace Oates, ed. William A. Fischel, 21–45. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2005
9.Rhode, P.W., and Strumpf K.S. Assessing the Importance of Tiebout Sorting: Local Heterogeneity from 1850 to 1990 // American Economic Review — 2003 — 93(5) — P.1648–77.
10.Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Gill, N. The global trend towards devolution and its implications // Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy — 2003 -21 (3) — P. 333-51.
11.Tiebout C. A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures // The Journal of Political Economy — 1956 — Vol. 64, №5 (Oct.1956) — P.416-424.
12.Weingast, B.R. The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development.// Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization — 1995 — №11 — P.1-31.
2.Brueckner, J.K. A Test for Allocative Efficiency in the Local Public Sector // Journal of Public Economics — 1982 -№19(3) — P.311–31.
3.Epple, D. and Sieg, H. Estimating Equilibrium Models of Local Jurisdictions // Journal of Political Economy -1999 — 107(4) — P.645–81.
4.Gramlich, E.M., and Rubinfeld, D.L (1982) “Micro Estimates of Public Spending Demand Functions and Tests of the Tiebout and Median-Voter Hypotheses // Journal of Political Economy — 1982 — 90(3) — P.536–60.
5.Musgrave, R. The theory of public finance: A study in public economy — N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1958 — 628c.
6.Oates, W.E. Fiscal Federalism — Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972 — 256c.
7.Oates, W.E. The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis. // Journal of Political Economy — 1969 — 77(6) — P.957–71.
8.Oates, W.E. The Many Faces of the Tiebout Model // The Tiebout Model at Fifty: Essays in Public Economics in Honor of Wallace Oates, ed. William A. Fischel, 21–45. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2005
9.Rhode, P.W., and Strumpf K.S. Assessing the Importance of Tiebout Sorting: Local Heterogeneity from 1850 to 1990 // American Economic Review — 2003 — 93(5) — P.1648–77.
10.Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Gill, N. The global trend towards devolution and its implications // Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy — 2003 -21 (3) — P. 333-51.
11.Tiebout C. A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures // The Journal of Political Economy — 1956 — Vol. 64, №5 (Oct.1956) — P.416-424.
12.Weingast, B.R. The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development.// Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization — 1995 — №11 — P.1-31.
Article.pdf