IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pubfin/v38y2010i6p738-761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Majority Rule versus Supermajority Rules: Their Effects on Narrow and Broad Taxes

Author

Listed:
  • Jac C. Heckelman

    (Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA, heckeljc@wfu.edu)

  • Keith L. Dougherty

    (University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA)

Abstract

Buchanan and Tullock argue that larger supermajority rules reduce tyranny of the majority but should have no effect on the passage of mutually advantageous policies. The authors test this argument by separately analyzing the effect of supermajority requirements on taxes that are targeted toward narrow groups (more redistributive) and taxes targeted toward a broader base (less redistributive), in a panel of fifty states from 1970 to 2008. Regression analysis reveals an inverse relationship between narrow taxes and the size of the majority rule requirement and no relationship between broad taxes and the size of the majority requirement—consistent with the claim of Buchanan and Tullock. The authors also find that Democratic controlled governments have significantly higher tax rates on narrow taxes than Republican controlled governments. The reverse is found for broad taxes, but the result is not as strong.

Suggested Citation

  • Jac C. Heckelman & Keith L. Dougherty, 2010. "Majority Rule versus Supermajority Rules: Their Effects on Narrow and Broad Taxes," Public Finance Review, , vol. 38(6), pages 738-761, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:38:y:2010:i:6:p:738-761
    DOI: 10.1177/1091142110373608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1091142110373608
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1091142110373608?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Knight, Brian G., 2000. "Supermajority voting requirements for tax increases: evidence from the states," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 41-67, April.
    2. Ferdinand A. Gul & Judy S. L. Tsui, 2004. "Introduction and overview," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: The Governance of East Asian Corporations, chapter 1, pages 1-26, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753, October.
    4. Zupan, Mark A, 1991. "An Economic Explanation for the Existence and Nature of Political Ticket Splitting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 343-369, October.
    5. Gordon Tullock, 1959. "Problems of Majority Voting," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(6), pages 571-571.
    6. Matthew C. Farrelly & Jeremy W. Bray & Terry Pechacek & Trevor Woollery, 2001. "Response by Adults to Increases in Cigarette Prices by Sociodemographic Characteristics," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(1), pages 156-165, July.
    7. Booms, Bernard H. & Halldorson, James R., 1973. "The Politics of Redistribution: A Reformulation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(3), pages 924-933, September.
    8. Gregory J. Colman & Dahlia K. Remler, 2008. "Vertical equity consequences of very high cigarette tax increases: If the poor are the ones smoking, how could cigarette tax increases be progressive?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 376-400.
    9. Ornstein, Stanley I & Hanssens, Dominique M, 1985. "Alcohol Control Laws and the Consumption of Distilled Spirits and Beer," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(2), pages 200-213, September.
    10. Avinash Dixit & Gene M. Grossman & Faruk Gul, 2000. "The Dynamics of Political Compromise," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 531-568, June.
    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. Cody Kallen, 2017. "State tax and expenditure limitations and supermajority requirements: New and updated data," AEI Economics Working Papers 956520, American Enterprise Institute.
    2. Keith Dougherty, 2012. "Buchanan and Tullock’s apple," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 403-406, September.
    3. Keith Dougherty & Julian Edward & Robi Ragan, 2015. "The value of formalism: re-examining external costs and decision costs with multiple groups," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 31-52, April.
    4. Björn Kauder & Niklas Potrafke, 2016. "Supermajorities and Political Rent Extraction," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 65-81, February.
    5. Keith Dougherty & Brian Pitts & Justin Moeller & Robi Ragan, 2014. "An experimental study of the efficiency of unanimity rule and majority rule," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 359-382, March.
    6. Paul Pecorino, 2018. "Supermajority rule, the law of 1/n, and government spending: a synthesis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 19-36, April.
    7. William B. Hankins, 2022. "Revisiting the effect of supermajority requirements on fiscal outcomes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(4), pages 1599-1625, April.
    8. Keith L. Dougherty, 2015. "Supermajority rules," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 7, pages 102-116, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Ellen C. Seljan, 2015. "Ready to Bargain: The Effect of Fiscal Stress on Supermajority Requirements to Raise Taxes," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 24-43, September.

    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. John Bradbury & Joseph Johnson, 2006. "Do supermajority rules limit or enhance majority tyranny? evidence from the US States, 1960–1997," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 429-441, June.
    2. Paul Pecorino, 2018. "Supermajority rule, the law of 1/n, and government spending: a synthesis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 19-36, April.
    3. Facchini, Francois, 2014. "The determinants of public spending: a survey in a methodological perspective," MPRA Paper 53006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Mahajan, Aseem & Pongou, Roland & Tondji, Jean-Baptiste, 2023. "Supermajority politics: Equilibrium range, policy diversity, utilitarian welfare, and political compromise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 963-974.
    5. Dongwon Lee & Thomas E. Borcherding & Youngho Kang, 2014. "Public Spending and the Paradox of Supermajority Rule," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(3), pages 614-632, January.
    6. Dongwon Lee, 2016. "Supermajority rule and bicameral bargaining," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 53-75, October.
    7. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    8. Feld, Lars P. & Fritz, Benedikt, 2015. "The political economy of municipal amalgamation: Evidence of common pool effects and local public debt," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 15/10, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    9. Ludwig Van den Hauwe, 2005. "Constitutional Economics II," Chapters, in: Jürgen G. Backhaus (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Law and Economics, Second Edition, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Carlos Scartascini & Mariano Tommasi & Ernesto Stein, 2010. "Veto Players and Policy Trade-Offs- An Intertemporal Approach to Study the Effects of Political Institutions on Policy," Research Department Publications 4660, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    11. John Charles Bradbury & W. Mark Crain, 2002. "Bicameral Legislatures and Fiscal Policy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(3), pages 646-659, January.
    12. Carlos Scartascini & Mariano Tommasi & Ernesto H. Stein, 2008. "Veto Players, Intertemporal Interactions and Policy Adaptability: How Do Political Institutions Work?," Research Department Publications 4593, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    13. Arnold Cédrick SOH VOUTSA, 2020. "Approval Voting & Majority Judgment in Weighted Representative Democracy," THEMA Working Papers 2020-15, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    14. Dennis Mueller, 2012. "James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, and The Calculus," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 329-332, September.
    15. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Corazzini, Luca & Passarelli, Francesco, 2017. "Voting as a lottery," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 129-137.
    16. William B. Hankins, 2022. "Revisiting the effect of supermajority requirements on fiscal outcomes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(4), pages 1599-1625, April.
    17. Alex Robson, 2014. "Transaction costs can encourage Coasean bargaining," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 539-549, September.
    18. Christian Bjørnskov & Axel Dreher & Justina Fischer, 2007. "The bigger the better? Evidence of the effect of government size on life satisfaction around the world," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 267-292, March.
    19. Andrew Abbott & Philip Jones, 2013. "Procyclical government spending: a public choice analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 243-258, March.
    20. Francisco Rodríguez & Eduardo Zambrano, 2022. "Monotone comparative statics in the Calvert–Wittman model," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 10(1), pages 105-116, May.

    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:sae:pubfin:v:38:y:2010:i:6:p:738-761. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.