IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v11y1997i4p73-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tiebout? Or Not Tiebout? The Market Metaphor and America's Devolution Debate

Author

Listed:
  • John D. Donahue

Abstract

The market metaphor of intergovernmental choice as a spur to efficiency (formalized by Charles M. Tiebout) is often invoked to support the shift away from Washington and toward the states. But the model translates badly to governments; governmental entry and exit is costly. Public-sector co11usion often serves citizens' interests. Heterogeneous mobility distorts the signals sent by interstate migration. And while Tiebout (and followers) condition efficiency predictions on optimal distribution, the U.S. devolution movement coincides with rising inequality and has gone furthest where distribution matters most. The metaphor is misapplied. Devolution will likely do more to enfeeble government than to improve it.

Suggested Citation

  • John D. Donahue, 1997. "Tiebout? Or Not Tiebout? The Market Metaphor and America's Devolution Debate," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 73-81, Fall.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:11:y:1997:i:4:p:73-81
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/jep.11.4.73
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.11.4.73
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    2. Brown, Charles C. & Oates, Wallace E., 1987. "Assistance to the poor in a federal system," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 307-330, April.
    3. Edward M. Gramlich & Deborah S. Laren, 1984. "Migration and Income Redistribution Responsibilities," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 19(4), pages 489-511.
    4. D.N. Saxena, 1989. "Foreign Direct Investment," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 24(1), pages 76-97, April.
    5. Phillip B. Levine & David J. Zimmerman, 1999. "An empirical analysis of the welfare magnet debate using the NLSY," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 12(3), pages 391-409.
    6. Cebula, Richard J, 1990. "A Brief Empirical Note on the Tiebout Hypothesis and State Income Tax Policies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 87-89, October.
    7. Carpenter, Vivian L., 1991. "The influence of political competition on the decision to adopt GAAP," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 105-134.
    8. Olson, Mancur, Jr, 1969. "The Principle of "Fiscal Equivalence": The Division of Responsibilities among Different Levels of Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 479-487, May.
    9. P.J. Grossman, 1989. "Fiscal Competition Among States in Australia: the Demise of Death Duties," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 89-01, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Storper & Michael Manville, 2006. "Behaviour, Preferences and Cities: Urban Theory and Urban Resurgence," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(8), pages 1247-1274, July.
    2. Saving, Jason L., 1999. "Migration, labor-leisure choice, and Pareto suboptimal redistribution," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 559-573, September.
    3. Howard, Greg & Ornaghi, Arianna, 2021. "Closing Time: The Local Equilibrium Effects of Prohibition," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(3), pages 792-830, September.
    4. repec:idb:brikps:266 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Swenson, David & Deller, Steven C., 2001. "Devolution or Convolution? The Changing Relationship Between Federal, State and Local Governments," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-27.
    6. Seppo Honkapohja & Frank Westermann, 2009. "Rethinking Subsidiarity in the EU: Economic Principles," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Seppo Honkapohja & Frank Westermann (ed.), Designing the European Model, chapter 10, pages 331-365, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Edward McPhail & Vlad Tarko, 2017. "The evolution of governance structures in a polycentric system," Chapters, in: Morris Altman (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics and Smart Decision-Making, chapter 16, pages 290-314, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Neyapti, Bilin, 2010. "Fiscal decentralization and deficits: International evidence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 155-166, June.
    9. Kraybill, David S. & Lobao, Linda, 2001. "The Emerging Roles of County Governments in Rural America: Findings from a Recent National Survey," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20697, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Coelho, André Luiz Ribeiro Coutinho Berardo de Moraes & Menezes, Tatiane Almeida de & Paes , Nelson Leitão, 2018. "The impact of physicians’ decentralization on health services and economic growth," Revista Brasileira de Estudos Regionais e Urbanos, Associação Brasileira de Estudos Regionais e Urbanos (ABER), vol. 12(3), pages 277-291.
    11. Bruce G. Carruthers & Naomi R. Lamoreaux, 2016. "Regulatory Races: The Effects of Jurisdictional Competition on Regulatory Standards," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(1), pages 52-97, March.
    12. Andrea Robbett, 2016. "Community dynamics in the lab," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 543-568, March.
    13. repec:ken:wpaper:0502 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. William R. Eadington, 1999. "The Economics of Casino Gambling," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 173-192, Summer.
    15. Gabe, Todd M., 2003. "Local Fiscal Policy and Establishment Growth," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-24.
    16. Olga Lucía Acosta N. & Israel Fainboim & Catalina Gutiérrez S. & Blanca Cecilia Zuluaga D., 1999. "Relaciones fiscales entre el Distrito Especial de Bogotá y la Nación," Coyuntura Social 13094, Fedesarrollo.
    17. Caplan, Bryan, 2001. "When is two better than one? How federalism mitigates and intensifies imperfect political competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 99-119, April.
    18. Francis Markham & Bruce Doran & Martin Young, 2014. "The Spatial Extents of Casino Catchments in Australia," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 60-78, March.
    19. Stoyan Prodanov & Lyudmil Naydenov, 2020. "Theoretical, Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects of Municipal Fiscal Autonomy in Bulgaria," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 2, pages 126-150.
    20. Vlad Tarko & Andrew Farrant, 2019. "The efficiency of regulatory arbitrage," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 141-166, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parviainen, Seija, 1998. "Redistribution and Risk Sharing in EMU," Discussion Papers 159, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Huberto M. Ennis & Santiago M. Pinto & Alberto Porto, 2006. "Choosing a place to live and a workplace," Económica, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, vol. 0(1-2), pages 15-51, January-D.
    3. Dahlberg, Matz & Edmark, Karin, 2008. "Is there a "race-to-the-bottom" in the setting of welfare benefit levels? Evidence from a policy intervention," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1193-1209, June.
    4. Nakazawa, Katsuyoshi & 中澤, 克佳 & ナカザワ, カツヨシ & Kawase, Akihiro & 川瀬, 晃弘 & カワセ, アキヒロ, 2009. "An Empirical Analysis of the Welfare Magnet: Aged Care Provision and Migration in Japan," PIE/CIS Discussion Paper 412, Center for Intergenerational Studies, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    5. Assaf Razin, 2013. "MIGRATION into the WELFARE STATE: tax and migration competition," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(4), pages 548-563, August.
    6. Floriana Cerniglia & Riccarda Longaretti, 2013. "Federalism, education-related public good and growth when agents are heterogeneous," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 271-301, July.
    7. Jan K. Brueckner, 2000. "Welfare Reform and the Race to the Bottom: Theory and Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(3), pages 505-525, January.
    8. Ian Preston, 2014. "The Effect of Immigration on Public Finances," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(580), pages 569-592, November.
    9. Berthold, Norbert & Fricke, Holger, 2003. "Deutschland im Herbst 2003 - blockierter Standortwettbewerb der Bundesländer," Discussion Paper Series 69, Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Chair of Economic Order and Social Policy.
    10. Shenghua Xie & Juan Chen & Veli-Matti Ritakallio & Xiangming Leng, 2021. "Welfare migration or migrant selection? Social insurance participation and rural migrants’ intentions to seek permanent urban settlement in China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(10), pages 1983-2003, August.
    11. Richard J. Cebula & J. R. Clark, 2013. "An extension of the Tiebout hypothesis of voting with one's feet: the Medicaid magnet hypothesis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(32), pages 4575-4583, November.
    12. Bruce D. Meyer, 1998. "Do the Poor Move to Receive Higher Welfare Benefits?," JCPR Working Papers 58, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    13. Saavedra, Luz Amparo, 2000. "A Model of Welfare Competition with Evidence from AFDC," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 248-279, March.
    14. Saving, Jason L., 1999. "Migration, labor-leisure choice, and Pareto suboptimal redistribution," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 559-573, September.
    15. Snarr, Hal W. & Burkey, Mark L., 2006. "A Preliminary Investigation of Welfare Migration Induced by Time Limits," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-16.
    16. Howard Chernick, 1998. "Fiscal Effects of Block Grants for the Needy: An Interpretation of the Evidence," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 5(2), pages 205-233, May.
    17. Stephen Billings & Thomas Thibodeau, 2011. "Intrametropolitan Decentralization: Is Government Structure Capitalized in Residential Property Values?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 416-450, May.
    18. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & Marie-Laure Breuillé, 2023. "Citizen preferences and the architecture of government," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 537-585, October.
    19. repec:zbw:bofrdp:1997_008 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Melle Marco C., 2014. "Eine europäische Bemessungsgrundlage für die Körperschaftsteuer? Konzeption und ordnungsökonomische Analyse / Conceptual design and constitutional economics analysis of a European tax base for corpora," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 65(1), pages 133-156, January.
    21. Phillip B. Levine & David J. Zimmerman, 1999. "An empirical analysis of the welfare magnet debate using the NLSY," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 12(3), pages 391-409.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H73 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:11:y:1997:i:4:p:73-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.