IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revaec/v25y2012i3p243-253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition, knowledge, and local government

Author

Listed:
  • Dean Stansel

Abstract

This paper applies the insights of Austrian economics to an important issue in local political economy. Basic economic theory holds that greater competition produces superior outcomes in private goods markets. The same should be true in the “markets” for the output of local government. Brennan and Buchanan ( 1977 , 1980 ) show that interjurisdictional competition may serve as a potential restraint on the monopoly powers of local Leviathan and Tiebout ( 1956 ) shows that it may help lead to the production of efficient quantities of local public goods. However, other potential virtues of competition in the market for local collective goods have been largely ignored. This paper explores those other virtues as well as the neoclassical theoretical foundations of the Tiebout ( 1956 ) model, upon which much of this literature is based. This has public policy implications for local governments, which have taken on increased importance given the recent global movement towards more decentralized government. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Dean Stansel, 2012. "Competition, knowledge, and local government," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 25(3), pages 243-253, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revaec:v:25:y:2012:i:3:p:243-253
    DOI: 10.1007/s11138-011-0168-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11138-011-0168-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11138-011-0168-y?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. 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. Eberts, Randall W. & Gronberg, Timothy J., 1990. "Structure, Conduct, and Performance in the Local Public Sector," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 43(2), pages 165-173, June.
    3. Randall Holcombe, 2008. "Advancing economic analysis beyond the equilibrium framework," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 21(4), pages 225-249, December.
    4. Peter Boettke & Christopher Coyne & Peter Leeson, 2011. "Quasimarket failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 209-224, October.
    5. Barankay, Iwan & Lockwood, Ben, 2007. "Decentralization and the productive efficiency of government: Evidence from Swiss cantons," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(5-6), pages 1197-1218, June.
    6. Nelson, Michael A, 1987. "Searching for Leviathan: Comment and Extension," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(1), pages 198-204, March.
    7. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2000. "Does Competition among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1209-1238, December.
    8. George W. Hammond & Mehmet S. Tosun, 2011. "The Impact Of Local Decentralization On Economic Growth: Evidence From U.S. Counties," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 47-64, February.
    9. Peter Leeson & J. Subrick, 2006. "Robust political economy," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 19(2), pages 107-111, June.
    10. Oates, Wallace E, 1985. "Searching for Leviathan: An Empirical Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(4), pages 748-757, September.
    11. Sanford Ikeda, 2007. "Urbanizing economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 20(4), pages 213-220, December.
    12. Ostrom, Vincent & Tiebout, Charles M. & Warren, Robert, 1961. "The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 831-842, December.
    13. Stansel, Dean, 2005. "Local decentralization and local economic growth: A cross-sectional examination of US metropolitan areas," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 55-72, January.
    14. Joshua C. Hall & Justin M. Ross, 2010. "Tiebout Competition, Yardstick Competition, and Tax Instrument Choice: Evidence from Ohio School Districts," Public Finance Review, , vol. 38(6), pages 710-737, November.
    15. Brennan,Geoffrey & Buchanan,James M., 2006. "The Power to Tax," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521027922, September.
    16. Niskanen, William A, 1975. "Bureaucrats and Politicians," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 617-643, December.
    17. Wagner, Richard E & Weber, Warren E, 1975. "Competition, Monopoly, and the Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 661-684, December.
    18. Zax, Jeffrey S, 1989. "Is There a Leviathan in Your Neighborhood?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 560-567, June.
    19. Sanford Ikeda & Sam Staley, 2004. "Introductory Essay for a Symposium on "Urban Interventionism"," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 17(2_3), pages 151-154, June.
    20. Mark Schneider, 1986. "Fragmentation and the growth of local government," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 255-263, January.
    21. Liner, Gaines H, 1994. "Institutional Constraints, Annexation and Municipal Efficiency in the 1960s," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 79(3-4), pages 305-323, June.
    22. Forbes, Kevin F & Zampelli, Ernest M, 1989. "Is Leviathan a Mythical Beast?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 568-577, June.
    23. Sonstelie, Jon C. & Portney, Paul R., 1978. "Profit maximizing communities and the theory of local public expenditure," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 263-277, April.
    24. Yinger, John, 1982. "Capitalization and the Theory of Local Public Finance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(5), pages 917-943, October.
    25. Blair, John P. & Staley, Sam, 1995. "Quality competition and public schools: Further evidence," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 193-198, June.
    26. Samuel Staley & John Blair, 1995. "Institutions, quality competition and public service provision: The case of public education," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 21-33, December.
    27. Dean Stansel, 2006. "Interjurisdictional Competition and Local Government Spending in U.S. Metropolitan Areas," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(2), pages 173-194, March.
    28. Fred E. Foldvary, 1994. "Public Goods And Private Communities," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 167.
    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. Joshua C. Hall & Josh Matti & Yang Zhou, 2020. "The economic impact of city–county consolidations: a synthetic control approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 43-77, July.

    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. Keith Dowding & Peter John & Stephen Biggs, 1994. "Tiebout : A Survey of the Empirical Literature," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 31(4-5), pages 767-797, May.
    2. Hoyt, William H., 1999. "Leviathan, local government expenditures, and capitalization," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 155-171, March.
    3. Zhu, Z. & Krug, B., 2005. "Is China a Leviathan?," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2004-103-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. Dean Stansel, 2006. "Interjurisdictional Competition and Local Government Spending in U.S. Metropolitan Areas," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(2), pages 173-194, March.
    5. Fox, William F. & Gurley, Tami, 2006. "Will consolidation improve sub-national governments ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3913, The World Bank.
    6. Lars Feld, 2014. "James Buchanan’s theory of federalism: from fiscal equity to the ideal political order," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 231-252, September.
    7. 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.
    8. George Crowley & Russell Sobel, 2011. "Does fiscal decentralization constrain Leviathan? New evidence from local property tax competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 5-30, October.
    9. Shanthi Karuppusamy & Jered B. Carr, 2012. "Interjurisdictional Competition and Local Public Finance: Assessing the Modifying Effects of Institutional Incentives and Fiscal Constraints," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(7), pages 1549-1569, May.
    10. Laurie Bates & Rexford Santerre, 2006. "Leviathan in the Crosshairs," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 133-145, April.
    11. George R. Crowley, 2015. "Local Intergovernmental Competition and the Law of 1/n," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(3), pages 742-768, January.
    12. Jürgen, Göbel, 2009. "How can the Power of Leviathans be Measured?," MPRA Paper 13663, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Agnese Sacchi, 2017. "The Impact Of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1095-1129, September.
    14. George A. Boyne & Michael Cole, 1998. "Revolution, Evolution and Local Government Structure: An Empirical Analysis of London," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(4), pages 751-768, April.
    15. Juan Luis Gómez-Reino & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2013. "An international perspective on the determinants of local government fragmentation," Chapters, in: Santiago Lago-Peñas & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez (ed.), The Challenge of Local Government Size, chapter 2, pages 8-54, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Lars P. Feld & Gebhard Kirchgässner & Christoph A. Schaltegger, 2010. "Decentralized Taxation and the Size of Government: Evidence from Swiss State and Local Governments," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(1), pages 27-48, July.
    17. Yonsu Kim & Jae Hong Kim, 2022. "What drives variations in public health and social services expenditures? the association between political fragmentation and local expenditure patterns," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(5), pages 781-789, July.
    18. Gebhard Kirchgassner, 2002. "The effects of fiscal institutions on public finance: a survey of the empirical evidence," Chapters, in: Stanley L. Winer & Hirofumi Shibata (ed.), Political Economy and Public Finance, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Joshua C. Hall & Justin M. Ross, 2010. "Tiebout Competition, Yardstick Competition, and Tax Instrument Choice: Evidence from Ohio School Districts," Public Finance Review, , vol. 38(6), pages 710-737, November.
    20. Landon, Stuart, 1999. "Education costs and institutional structure," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 327-345, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Interjurisdictional competition; Fragmentation; Decentralization; Federalism; Leviathan; Local government; H7; R5;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H7 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
    • R5 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis

    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:revaec:v:25:y:2012:i:3:p:243-253. 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.