Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 267–277 | Cite as

Initiatives and government expenditures

  • Jeffrey S. Zax
Article

Abstract

This paper demonstrates that provisions for initiatives have important effects on government spending. Provisions for initiatives encourage legislatures to approve any proposal which might attract substantial popular support. If these proposals are more likely to advocate increases than reductions in expenditures, the presence of initiative provisions will increase total expenditures. Direct government expenditures per capita are significantly higher in both states and municipalities which permit initiatives.

Keywords

Public Finance Total Expenditure Government Expenditure Government Spending Popular Support 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, R.A. and Wyrick, T.L. (1985). Continuing the debate on NABR: Reply. Cato Journal 5 (1): 345–350.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, J.D. (1915). The operation of the initiative: Referendum and recall in Oregon. New York: The MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
  3. Beard, C.A. and Shultz, B.E. (1912). Documents on the state-wide initiative: Referendum and recall. New York: The MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
  4. Bergstrom, T.C. and Goodman, R.P. (1973). Private demands for public goods. American Economic Review 63 (3): 280–296.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, G.S. (1967). American legislatures: Structures and process. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  6. Bolnick, B.R. (1985). The national budget referendum: Proceed with caution. Cato Journal 5 (1): 337–343.Google Scholar
  7. Bone, H.A. and Benedict, R.C. (1975). Perspectives on direct legislation: Washington State's experience 1914–1973. The Western Political Quarterly 28 (2): 330–351.Google Scholar
  8. Borcherding, T.E. and Deacon, R.T. (1972). The demand for the services of non-federal governments. American Economic Review 62 (5): 891–901.Google Scholar
  9. Bureau of the Census. (1982). Census of population and housing, 1980. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  10. Bureau of the Census. (1984). Census of governments, 1982. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  11. The Council of State Governments. (1980). The book of the states, 1980–1981, Vol. 23. Lexington.Google Scholar
  12. Denzau, A.T., Mackay, R.J. and Weaver, C.L. (1981). On the initiative-referendum option and the control of monopoly government. In H.F. Ladd and T.N. Tideman (Eds.), Tax and expenditure limitations, 191–222. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gramlich, E.M. and Rubinfeld, D.L. (1982). Micro estimates of public spending demand functions and tests of the Tiebout and median-voter hypotheses. Journal of Political Economy 90 (3): 536–560.Google Scholar
  14. Hahn, H. and Kamieniecki, S. (1987). Referendum voting: Social status and policy pReferences. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton, H.D. (1970). Direct legislation: Some implications of open housing referenda. American Political Science Review 64 (1): 124–137.Google Scholar
  16. Holcombe, R.G. and Taylor, P.C. (1980). Tax referenda and the voluntary exchange model of taxation: A suggested implementation. Public Finance Quarterly 8 (1): 107–114.Google Scholar
  17. International City Management Association. (1981). Form of governments survey, 1981. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, L.J. (1913). Direct legislation as an ally of representative government. In W.B. Munro (Ed.), The initiative, referendum and recall, 139–163. New York: D. Appleton and Company.Google Scholar
  19. Mikesell, J.L. (1986). The path of the tax revolt: Statewide expenditure and tax control referenda since Proposition 13. State and Local Government Review 18 (1): 5–12.Google Scholar
  20. Munley, V.G. and Greene, K.V. (1978). Fiscal illusion, the nature of public goods and equation specification. Public Choice 33 (1): 95–100.Google Scholar
  21. Ranney, A. (1978). The United States of America. In D. Butler and A. Ranney (Eds.), Referendums: A comparative study of practice and theory, 67–86, Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  22. Rothenberg, J. (1981). Discussion of A.T. Denzau, R.J. Mackay and C.L. Weaver, "On the initiative-referendum option and the control of monopoly government." In H.F. Ladd and T. Nicolaus Tideman (Eds.), Tax and expenditure limitations, 223–232. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  23. Shepsle, K. (1978). The giant jigsaw puzzle: Democratic committee assignments in the House of Representatives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Theil, H. (1971). Principles of econometrics. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Tiebout, C.M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64: 416–424.Google Scholar
  26. Wagner, R.E. (1976). Revenue structure, fiscal illusion, and budgetary choice. Public Choice 25: 45–61.Google Scholar
  27. Zax, J.S. (forthcoming). Is there a Leviathan in your neighborhood? American Economic Review.Google Scholar
  28. Zax, J.S. (1988). Legislative characteristics and government expenditures. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey S. Zax
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Economics, Queens College and the Graduate CenterC.U.N.Y.USA
  2. 2.National Bureau of Economic ResearchNew York

Personalised recommendations