1981
DOI: 10.1086/260997
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

22
746
0
35

Year Published

1997
1997
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,346 publications
(803 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
22
746
0
35
Order By: Relevance
“…Theories of legislative decision making emphasize that elected representatives are trading off the virtues of public goods against the attractiveness of spending the money on particularistic goods ('pork') benefitting voters in their home districts (Weingast, Shepsle, and Johnsen, 1981;Baron and Ferejohn, 1989;Volden and Wiseman, 2007;Fréchette, Kagel, and Morelli, 2012). This reasoning fits well with existing evidence from countries using plurality rule, notably the United States.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Theories of legislative decision making emphasize that elected representatives are trading off the virtues of public goods against the attractiveness of spending the money on particularistic goods ('pork') benefitting voters in their home districts (Weingast, Shepsle, and Johnsen, 1981;Baron and Ferejohn, 1989;Volden and Wiseman, 2007;Fréchette, Kagel, and Morelli, 2012). This reasoning fits well with existing evidence from countries using plurality rule, notably the United States.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…In the model of Weingast, Shepsle, and Johnsen (1981), a legislature of representatives from different districts decide autonomously on geographically targeted policies to be financed by joint taxation ('universalism'). The incentive to exploit the common pool is stronger if districts are smaller.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wildasin (1989). 29 If state governments are however able to precommit, a corrective grant will be neutral for state policy. Selecting fiscal instruments after state taxes are chosen leaves no rationale for the federal government to implement corrective policies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, Eq. (11) (for both states) and the federal budget constraint 29 We should note that introducing a federal corrective policy toward state governments would generically imply an "undercorrection" of the tax competition externality since labor taxation is distortionary (e.g. Sandmo, 1975).…”
Section: A1 Slope Of the Reaction Functionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…States Congress (Shepsle and Weingast, 1980;Weingast et al, 1981;Evans, 2004). According to these models, bargaining for fiscal legislation in a separation of powers system with a legislature organized into specialized committees should produce economically inefficient and unequal laws, oriented to catering for special (sectoral, local, particular) interests located at the subnational level at the expense of the federal Treasury.…”
Section: Tax Lawmaking In Argentina: General Patternsmentioning
confidence: 99%