Further Tests of Individual-Level Propositions from the Tiebout Model

Percy, Stephen L.; Hawkins, Brett W.

doi:10.2307/2132112

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent micro-level studies appraising the motivations for geographical household mobility attempt to demonstrate the causal link between aggregatedate findings and actual reasons for moving (Orbell and Uno, 1972;Sharp, 1984Sharp, , 1986Lowery and Lyons, 1989;Lyons and Lowery, 1989;Lyons, Lowery and De Hoog, 1992;Percy and Hawkins, 1992;Percy, 1993;Teske, Schneider, Mintron, and Best, 1993;John, Dowding, and Biggs, 1995). Most of these surveys suggest that behavioral assumptions of the Tiebout model are cogent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exiting behavior under Tiebout conditions: Towards a predictive model

Dowding

John

1996

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper briefly reviews recent research that adapts and extends the Tiebout model of residential choice, paying special attention to those studies which utilize Hirschman's exit, voice and loyalty model. The paper argues that these are theoretically and empirically flawed since they do not take account of Tiebout-rational intra-jurisdictional moves but concentrate upon potential exiting behavior. The article then tests the importance of the inter-/intrajurisdictional distinction using a logit model of factors using data from the 1990 Economic and Social Research Council Mobility Study (ECSRCMS) of London. Finding weak results from this analysis, the article then offers a more powerful test of factors predicting a move to jurisdictions with preferable tax rates.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exiting behavior under Tiebout conditions: Towards a predictive model

Dowding

John

1996

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The unique social, economic, political, and demographical conditions of the American states result in spending policies that are quite distinct from one another (Abrams and Dougan, 1986;Lowry 1994, 2000;Bohn and Inman, 1996;Cnudde and McCrone, 1969;Cox and McCubbins, 1991;Dawson and Robinson 1963;Merrifield 2000;Peterson, 1995;Tompkins 1975). Unlike the case for the federal government, residents of states have higher levels of mobility to choose a state of residence that satisfies their preferences of public goods the best to move to (Allard and Danziger, 2000;Bailey, 2005;DeHoog, Lower, and Lyons, 1990;Hawkins, 1992;Lowery and Lyons, 1989;Lyons and Lowery, 1989;Lyons, Lowery, and deHoog, 1992;Percy and Hawkins, 1992;Peterson and Rom, 1990;Schram, Nitz, and Krueger, 1998;Tiebout, 1956). Given the market-like conditions created by the U.S. federal system, it is likely that public preferences exert a stronger influence on state spending policy.…”

Section: State Spending Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Fiscal Policy in the American States

Garand

Ulrich

2013

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter reviews the recent scholarly literature on fiscal policy in the American states, focusing on several important topics: (1) size and growth of the public sector in the states; (2) how states determine expenditure and revenue priorities; (3) the politics of state budget deficits and surpluses; (4) the effects of fiscal policy on various political, economic, and social outcomes. The pace of scholarly research by political scientists on state fiscal policy has slowed considerably during the first decade of the 2000s, resulting in a leveling off of scientific progress in understanding state fiscal policy. There is a lot we still do not know about the size of the public sector, state spending and revenue policy, state deficits and surpluses, and the effects of state fiscal policy. We conclude with a discussion of unanswered research questions as a means of building an agenda for future research on state fiscal policy.

show abstract

“…In contrast, Percy and Hawkins (1992) test the "most local level of government measure" using Milwaukee data and find that two-thirds of the respondents identify their city, village or town government as the most important. Two problems with Lowery and Lyons's data source are evident (Percy and Hawkins, 1992). First, they use data from TIEBOUT 785 southern states where county governments have traditionally been the most important objects of citizen identification .…”

Section: Micro-level Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though residents in the fragmented Louisville area did demonstrate greater support for the exit option, the figures were too small for the exit response to constitute a major form of political participation . However, to show that only a small number of residents are likely to relocate because of dissatisfaction with taxes/ services is not necessarily proof or invalidation of Tiebout (Percy and Hawkins, 1992) . Tiebout argues that outside equilibrium, only a subset of consumers at any one time is likely to be sufficiently discontented to depart.…”

Section: Micro-level Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%