IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v23y2005i5p553-566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Plebiscites, Fiscal Policy and the Poor: Learning from US Experience with Direct Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur A. Goldsmith

Abstract

Many countries are contemplating direct political participation as a way of giving marginalised people more say in national fiscal policies. The United States is a natural laboratory for studying how large-scale direct democracy actually works in this regard. Every state allows voters to decide certain ballot questions about how to raise and spend public revenue. The 100-year record shows, however, that state-wide plebiscites fail to produce uniformly equitable or financially sustainable government budgets, or to mobilise low-income groups to defend their economic interests. When called upon to make decisions about state government spending, the electorate is apt to disregard any hardship for poor people. Traditional political parties and advocacy organisations are usually a more promising avenue for promoting anti-poverty budgets. Copyright Overseas Development Institute, 2005.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur A. Goldsmith, 2005. "Plebiscites, Fiscal Policy and the Poor: Learning from US Experience with Direct Democracy," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 23(5), pages 553-566, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:23:y:2005:i:5:p:553-566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Matthias Fatke, 2013. "Participation and Political Equality in Direct Democracy: Educative Effect or Social Bias," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 3, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    2. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    3. Nelson, Erik & Uwasu, Michinori & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Voting on open space: What explains the appearance and support of municipal-level open space conservation referenda in the United States?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 580-593, May.

    More about this item

    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:bla:devpol:v:23:y:2005:i:5:p:553-566. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.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.