Author
Abstract
This paper surveys the theoretical and empirical research on the relationship between local taxation, land use regulation and land use patterns. The findings can be summarized as follows: 1) In more fiscally decentralized settings, sub-national land use regulation and fiscal policies encourage urban sprawl. In contrast, in more centralized settings, restrictive urban containment policies and a lack of local fiscal incentives for land development tend to generate housing shortages. 2) Certain fiscal instruments affect the type and composition of land development, e.g. the share of residential versus commercial development. Removing local fiscal incentives for certain property types reduces the amount of land allocated for that type and increases its price. 3) In more decentralized settings, local land use policies aimed at containing or modifying urban growth are ineffective since mobile individuals can circumvent local restrictions by sorting into nearby jurisdictions that offer the preferred combination of land consumption and public services. 4) Expanding transportation networks enables households and firms to move to suburban areas, prompting the central city population to shrink and encouraging sprawl, particularly near major highways. 5) In fiscally decentralized settings, sub-urbanization is associated with a growing political power of homeowners. Homeowners tend to get fiscal zoning policies enacted – mainly via minimum lot size restrictions – that selectively attract well-off local taxpayers. Fiscal zoning thus imposes barriers to local development and raises property values, while at the same time facilitating sprawl. Overall, fiscal policy and land use regulation strongly interact, and governments must align those policies carefully to achieve land-use objectives effectively. Fiscalité locale, réglementation d’urbanisme et occupation des sols : Étude empirique Ce document étudie les travaux de recherche théoriques et empiriques consacrés aux relations entre fiscalité locale, réglementation d’urbanisme et modes d’occupation des sols. Les résultats peuvent être résumés comme suit : 1) Dans les pays qui pratiquent la décentralisation budgétaire, la réglementation d’urbanisme et les politiques budgétaires au niveau infranational encouragent l’étalement urbain. À l’inverse, dans les pays plus centralisés, des politiques restrictives de maîtrise de l’étalement des villes et le manque d’incitations budgétaires locales en faveur de l’aménagement du territoire ont tendance à entraîner une pénurie de logements. 2) Certains instruments budgétaires influent sur le type et la composition de l’aménagement du territoire, par exemple l’importance de la construction de logements par rapport à celle de bâtiments à usage commercial. La suppression des incitations budgétaires locales en faveur de certains types de biens réduit la surface des sols qui leur sont affectés et augmente leurs prix. 3) Dans les pays à structure plus décentralisée, les politiques locales d’occupation des sols visant à limiter ou à modifier la croissance urbaine sont inefficaces car les individus mobiles peuvent contourner les restrictions locales en s’établissant dans les juridictions voisines qui offrent l’équilibre recherché entre occupation des sols et services publics. 4) Le développement des réseaux de transport permet aux ménages et aux entreprises de s’établir en zones périphériques, ce qui accélère la désertification des centres villes et favorise l’étalement urbain, surtout le long des routes à grande circulation. 5) Dans les pays où la gestion budgétaire est décentralisée, le développement des banlieues est associé au pouvoir politique croissant des propriétaires fonciers. Ceux-ci font généralement pression pour que des mesures d’urbanisme obéissant à des considérations budgétaires soient prises – essentiellement en fixant une taille minimale des lots – qui favorisent les contribuables plus aisés. Aussi, les décisions d’urbanisme qui répondent à des objectifs budgétaires freinent le développement local et augmentent la valeur des biens, tout en favorisant l’étalement urbain. Globalement, la politique budgétaire et la réglementation d’urbanisme sont étroitement liées, et les pouvoirs publics doivent harmoniser ces politiques pour atteindre efficacement les objectifs d’occupation des sols.
Suggested Citation
Hansjörg Blöchliger & Christian Hilber & Olivier Schöni & Maximilian von Ehrlich, 2017.
"Local taxation, land use regulation, and land use: A survey of the evidence,"
OECD Economics Department Working Papers
1375, OECD Publishing.
Handle:
RePEc:oec:ecoaaa:1375-en
DOI: 10.1787/52da7c6a-en
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Awasthi, Rajul & Nagarajan, Mohan & Deininger, Klaus W., 2021.
"Property taxation in India: Issues impacting revenue performance and suggestions for reform,"
Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
- McMillan, Melville L., 2018.
"“Causes of Sprawl”: A (Further) Public Finance Extension,"
Working Papers
2018-4, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
- Lenka Maličká, 2017.
"The Role of Immovable Property Taxes in the EU Countries - Taxes on Land, Buildings and Other Structure in Sub-national Tax Revenues under the Conditions of Tax Decentralization,"
Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1383-1392.
More about this item
Keywords
fiscal competition;
fiscal instruments;
land use patterns;
land use regulations;
sprawl;
urban density;
All these keywords.
JEL classification:
- H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
- H3 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
- H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
- H7 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
- R3 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location
- R4 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics
- R5 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis
NEP fields
This paper has been announced in the following
NEP Reports:
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:oec:ecoaaa:1375-en. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edoecfr.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.