IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-687248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Government Fiscally Blind? An Empirical Examination of the Effect of the Compensation Requirement on Eminent-Domain Exercises

Author

Listed:
  • Ronit Levine-Schnur
  • Gideon Parchomovsky

Abstract

We empirically test the fiscal-illusion hypothesis in the takings context in Israel. Israeli law allows local governments to expropriate up to 40 percent of any parcel without compensation. In 2001, the Israeli Supreme Court created a carve out for takings of 100 percent, requiring full compensation in such cases. We analyze data for 3,140 takings cases in Tel Aviv between 1990 and 2014. There was no disproportionate share of takings of just under 40 percent. Nor was there a long-term drop in the share of 100 percent takings after 2001. Although a short-term drop in the share of 100 percent takings followed the 2001 decision, the trend was later reversed, and the share of 100 percent takings surpassed the pre-2001 level. Our findings do not corroborate the fiscal-illusion hypothesis in its strict form. Rather, they lend qualified support to the hypothesis that takings practices are largely shaped by planning needs and fairness considerations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronit Levine-Schnur & Gideon Parchomovsky, 2016. "Is the Government Fiscally Blind? An Empirical Examination of the Effect of the Compensation Requirement on Eminent-Domain Exercises," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 437-469.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/687248
    DOI: 10.1086/687248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/687248
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/687248
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/687248?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. John Gerring & Rose McDermott, 2007. "An Experimental Template for Case Study Research," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 688-701, July.
    2. Paul Niemann & Perry Shapiro, 2010. "Compensation for Taking When Both Equity and Efficiency Matter," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Bruce L. Benson (ed.), Property Rights, chapter 4, pages 55-76, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Emma Aisbett & Larry Karp & Carol Mcausland, 2010. "Police Powers, Regulatory Takings and the Efficient Compensation of Domestic and Foreign Investors," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(274), pages 367-383, September.
    4. Raj Chetty, 2012. "Bounds on Elasticities With Optimization Frictions: A Synthesis of Micro and Macro Evidence on Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 969-1018, May.
    5. Richard Wagner, 1976. "Revenue structure, fiscal illusion, and budgetary choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 45-61, March.
    6. Ramnath, Shanthi, 2013. "Taxpayers' responses to tax-based incentives for retirement savings: Evidence from the Saver's Credit notch," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 77-93.
    7. Emmanuel Saez, 2010. "Do Taxpayers Bunch at Kink Points?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 180-212, August.
    8. Rupert Sausgruber & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2005. "Testing the Mill hypothesis of fiscal illusion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 39-68, January.
    9. Lawrence Blume & Daniel L. Rubinfeld & Perry Shapiro, 1984. "The Taking of Land: When Should Compensation Be Paid?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(1), pages 71-92.
    10. Paul Pecorino, 2011. "Optimal Compensation for Regulatory Takings," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 269-289.
    11. Roberto Dell’Anno & Paulo Mourao, 2012. "Fiscal Illusion around the World," Public Finance Review, , vol. 40(2), pages 270-299, March.
    12. Dollery, Brian E & Worthington, Andrew C, 1996. "The Empirical Analysis of Fiscal Illusion," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 261-297, September.
    13. Oren Bar-Gill & Ariel Porat, 2014. "Harm–Benefit Interactions," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 16(1), pages 86-116.
    14. Yun‐chien Chang, 2009. "Empire Building and Fiscal Illusion? An Empirical Study of Government Official Behaviors in Takings," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 541-584, September.
    15. Daniel Göller & Michael Hewer, 2014. "Economic Analysis of Taking Rules: The Bilateral Investment Case," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 170(3), pages 520-536, September.
    16. Miceli, Thomas J., 1997. "Economics of the Law: Torts, Contracts, Property, Litigation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195103908.
    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. Roberto Dell'Anno & Morena De Stefano, 2014. "Un indicatore sintetico dell?Illusione Finanziaria. Un tentativo di stima per l?Italia," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1), pages 65-92.
    2. Roberto Dell’Anno & Brian Dollery, 2014. "Comparative fiscal illusion: a fiscal illusion index for the European Union," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 937-960, May.
    3. Roberto Dell'Anno & Vincenzo Maria De Rosa, 2013. "The Relevance of the Theory of Fiscal Illusion. The Case of the Italian Tax System," HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(2), pages 63-92.
    4. Hans-Bernd Schäfer & Ram Singh, 2018. "Takings of Land by Self-Interested Governments: Economic Analysis of Eminent Domain," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(3), pages 427-459.
    5. Andreas Buehn & Roberto Dell’Anno & Friedrich Schneider, 2018. "Exploring the dark side of tax policy: an analysis of the interactions between fiscal illusion and the shadow economy," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1609-1630, June.
    6. Roberto Dell’Anno & Paulo Mourao, 2012. "Fiscal Illusion around the World," Public Finance Review, , vol. 40(2), pages 270-299, March.
    7. Martin Baekgaard & Søren Serritzlew & Jens Blom-Hansen, 2016. "Causes of Fiscal Illusion: Lack of Information or Lack of Attention?," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 26-44, June.
    8. Buehn, Andreas & Dell'Anno, Roberto & Schneider, Friedrich, 2012. "Fiscal illusion and the shadow economy: Two sides of the same coin?," MPRA Paper 42531, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates, 2012. "On Fiscal Illusion and Ricardian Equivalence in Local Public Finance," NBER Working Papers 18040, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Francois Facchini, 2018. "What Are the Determinants of Public Spending? An Overview of the Literature," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 46(4), pages 419-439, December.
    11. Haug, Peter, 2009. "Shadow Budgets, Fiscal Illusion and Municipal Spending: The Case of Germany," IWH Discussion Papers 9/2009, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    12. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates, 2013. "On Fiscal Illusion in Local Public Finance: Re-Examining Ricardian Equivalence and the Renter Effect," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 66(3), pages 511-540, September.
    13. Andrew Abbott & Philip Jones, 2016. "Fiscal Illusion and Cyclical Government Expenditure: State Government Expenditure in the United States," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 63(2), pages 177-193, May.
    14. Lenka Malicka, 2021. "The Mill Hypothesis Examination on the EU Sample," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 17(2), pages 47-58.
    15. Andreas R. Kostøl & Andreas S. Myhre, 2021. "Labor Supply Responses to Learning the Tax and Benefit Schedule," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3733-3766, November.
    16. Simon Halphen Boserup & Wojciech Kopczuk & Claus Thustrup Kreiner, 2018. "Born with a Silver Spoon? Danish Evidence on Wealth Inequality in Childhood," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(612), pages 514-544, July.
    17. Annette Alstadsæter & Wojciech Kopczuk & Kjetil Telle, 2019. "Social networks and tax avoidance: evidence from a well-defined Norwegian tax shelter," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(6), pages 1291-1328, December.
    18. Britton, Jack & Gruber, Jonathan, 2020. "Do income contingent student loans reduce labor supply?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    19. F. Forte, 1997. "The measurement of 'fiscal burden' on GDP instead than on national net value added produced: a chapter in fiscal illusion," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 50(202), pages 337-375.
    20. Soren Blomquist & Anil Kumar & Che-Yuan Liang & Whitney K. Newey, 2022. "Nonlinear Budget Set Regressions for the Random Utility Model," Working Papers 2219, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

    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:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/687248. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    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.