IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v36y1981i1p43-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An analysis of factors affecting differential assessment legislation

Author

Listed:
  • Rod Ziemer
  • Fred White
  • Ivery Clifton

Abstract

This paper has attempted to identify the factors affecting agricultural differential assessment legislation. State characteristics that were determined to be important in determining the type of legislation enacted were population density, amount of land in farms, level of property taxes, median income, farm income, age distribution, education, and recreational and other personal travel. Discriminant analysis based on these factors allowed correct classification of eighty percent of all states with one of the three types of differential assessment laws. High levels of farm income and education were found to be associated with preferential assessment laws. High levels of property taxes, median income, percentage of the population over sixty-five, and in-state household trips appeared associated with restrictive agreement laws. Predictions of the most likely type of law to be adopted by the six states without differential assessment laws as of 1977, were also presented. Results indicated that among these states, the four southeastern ones, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and West Virginia, would most likely adopt deferred taxation laws while preferential assessment and restrictive agreement laws were predicted for Kansas and Wisconsin respectively. The analysis presented deos suffer some shortcomings. First, most of the data were for 1975, while differential assessment laws have been passed in various years, beginning in 1956. However, the majority of the variables used in the analysis are not highly sensitive to time and more importantly, relative differences in their values among states probably do not vary significantly over time. Second, this study has only attempted to determine and analyze factors affecting the type of differential assessment law a state is most likly to prefer. No attempt was made to determine the reasons why, as of 1977, six states had not adopted differential assessment legislation. Rather, predictions were made as to the type of law these states would most likely prefer. Further research would be necessary to determine the reasons these states had not adopted any form of differential assessment law as of 1977. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers bv 1981

Suggested Citation

  • Rod Ziemer & Fred White & Ivery Clifton, 1981. "An analysis of factors affecting differential assessment legislation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 43-52, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:36:y:1981:i:1:p:43-52
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00163769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00163769
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00163769?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hady, Thomas F. & Sibold, Ann Gordon, 1974. "State Programs for the Differential Assessment of Farm and Open Space Land," Agricultural Economic Reports 307503, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Conklin, Howard E. & Bryant, William R., 1974. "Agricultural Districts: A Compromise Approach to Agricultural Preservation," Staff Papers 185791, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    3. H. E. Conklin & W. R. Bryant, 1974. "Agricultural Districts: A Compromise Approach to Agricultural Preservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 56(3), pages 607-613.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Snyder, Robert W., 1976. "Agricultural Land Use Policy: Some Perspectives And Observations," Staff Papers 13550, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Gustafson, Gregory C., 1977. "Land-Use Policy and Farmland Retention: The United States' Experience," Miscellaneous Publications 329531, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Clayton, Kenneth C. & Milon, J. Walter, 1979. "Agriculture and the Property Tax: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Evidence," Staff Paper Series 239309, University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department.
    4. Bills, Nelson L. & Cosgrove, Jeremiah P., 1998. "Agricultural Districts: Lessons from New York," Staff Papers 121159, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    5. Long, Burl F. & Infanger, Craig L. & Danielson, Leon E., 1977. "Land Use Planning And Policy In The South," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, July.
    6. White, Fred C., 1978. "Impact Of Substituting The Transactions Tax For The Farm Real Estate Tax," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 1-6, December.
    7. Syed Shurid Khan & Shawn Arita & Richard Howitt & PingSun Leung, 2022. "Evaluating change in property tax regime on noncommercial food production using a modified positive mathematical programming model," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(9), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Giorgia Iovino & Eleonora Guadagno & Daniele Bagnoli, 2023. "Food for Thoughts: The District Approach to Rural Areas Development—A Case Study in Campania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-26, November.
    9. Joyce, Lucy T. & Bills, Nelson L., 1996. "Agricultural and Farmland Protection Planning: A Case Study in Orange County, New York," Staff Papers 121188, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    10. Bills, Nelson L., 2007. "Fifty Years of Farmland Protection Legislation in the Northeast: Persistent Issues and Emergent Research Opportunities," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-9, October.
    11. Anderson, John E. & Giertz, Seth H. & Shimul, Shafiun N., 2022. "Reducing property taxes for agriculture: Diffusion of use-value assessment policy across the United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    12. Pasour Jr., E.C. & Danielson, Leon E., 1975. "Agricultural Use-Value Taxation In North Carolina, 1974 And 1975," Department of Economics and Business - Archive 259541, North Carolina State University, Department of Economics.
    13. White, Fred C. & Miller, Bill R. & Logan, Charles A., 1975. "An Agricultural Value Tax as an Alternative to Land Use Tax or Market Value Tax on Land," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 137-143, July.
    14. Bigelow, Daniel P. & Kuethe, Todd, 2023. "The impact of preferential farmland taxation on local public finances," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    15. Richard Goodenough, 1978. "An Approach to Land-use Control: the California Land Conservation Act," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 15(3), pages 289-297, October.
    16. Stam, Jerome M. & Sibold, Ann Gordon, 1977. "Agriculture and the Property Tax: A Forward Look Based on a Historical Perspective," Agricultural Economic Reports 307674, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Daugherty, Arthur B., 1978. "Open Space Preservation: Federal Tax Policies Encouraging Donation Of Conservation Easements," Economics Statistics and Cooperative Services (ESCS) Reports 279721, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:36:y:1981:i:1:p:43-52. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.