Political Behavior

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 333–352 | Cite as

The attitudinal consequences of the tax revolt

  • David Lowery
Article
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

This paper attempts to assess the strength and direction of the attitudinal consequences of the tax revolt. An initial taxonomy of potential attitudinal effects is developed in the first section via a brief examination of the attitude-based explanations of the revolt. Those effect hypotheses are then tested via a pretest-posttest comparison group design analysis of 1976, 1978, and 1980 American National Election Study data. The results of those tests are discussed in the final section.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balch, George (1974). “Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept ‘Sense of Political Efficacy.’”Political Methodology 1: 1–43.Google Scholar
  2. Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. (1972).Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Boskin, Michael J. (1979). “Some Neglected Economic Factors Behind Recent Tax and Spending Limitation Movements.”National Tax Journal 32: 37–42.Google Scholar
  4. Break, George F. (1979). “Interpreting Proposition 13: A Comment.”National Tax Journal 32: 43–46.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, Geoffrey, and James Buchanan (1979). “The logic of Tax Limits: Alternative Constitutional Constraints of the Power to Tax.”National Tax Journal 32: 11–22.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, James M. (1979). “The Potential for Taxpayer Revolt in American Democracy.”Social Science Quarterly 59: 691–696.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T., and J. C. Stanley (1966).Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  8. Citrin, Jack (1979). “Do People Want Something for Nothing: Public Opinion on Taxes and Spending.”National Tax Journal 32: 113–129.Google Scholar
  9. Congressional Budget Office (1979). “Proposition 13: Its Impact on the Nation's Economy, Federal Revenues and Federal Expenditures.” In Arthur B. Laffer and Jan Seymour (eds.),The Economics of the Tax Revolt. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  10. Craig, Stephen C. (1980). “Measuring Political Efficacy.” Mimeo, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  11. Eismeier, Theodore J. (1979). “Budgets and Ballots: The Political Consequences of Fiscal Choice.” In Douglas Rae and Theodore J. Eismeier (eds.),Public Policy and Public Choice. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Eribes, Richard A., and John S. Hall (1981). “Revolt of the Affluent: Fiscal Controls in Three States.”Public Administration Review 41: 107–121.Google Scholar
  13. Hansen, Susan (1981). “The Tax Revolt and the Politics of Redistribution.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, September 1981.Google Scholar
  14. Hebert, F. Ted, and Richard D. Bingham (1979). “Public Opinion, the Taxpayers Revolt, and Local Government.” In John P. Blair and David Nachmias (eds.),Fiscal Retrenchment and Urban Policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Kadlec, Charles W., and Arthur Laffer (1979). “The Jarvis-Gann Tax Cut Proposal: An Application of the Laffer Curve.” In Arthur B. Laffer and Jan Seymour (eds.),The Economics of the Tax Revolt. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  16. Kirlin, John J., and Jeffrey I. Chapman (1979). “California State Finance and Proposition 13.”National Tax Journal 32: 269–276.Google Scholar
  17. Levine, Charles (1980).Managing Fiscal Stress. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Lowery, David (1982). “Limitations on Taxing and Spending Powers: An Assessment of Their Effectiveness.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, April 1982.Google Scholar
  19. Lowery, David, and Lee Sigelman (1981). “Understanding the Tax Revolt: Eight Explanations.”American Political Science Review 75: 963–974.Google Scholar
  20. Lucier, Richard L. (1980). “Gauging the Strength and Meaning of the 1978 Tax Revolt.” In Charles H. Levine (ed.),Managing Fiscal Stress. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. McCaffery, Jerry, and John H. Bowman (1978). “Participatory Democracy and Budgeting: The Effects of Proposition 13.”Public Administration Review 38: 530–538.Google Scholar
  22. McPherson, J. Miller, Susan Welch, and Cal Clark (1977). “The Stability and Reliability of Political Efficacy: Using Path Analysis to Test Alternative Models.”American Political Science Review 71: 509–521.Google Scholar
  23. Musgrave, Richard A. (1979). “The Tax Revolt.”Social Science Quarterly 59: 697–703.Google Scholar
  24. Mushkin, Selma (1979).Proposition 13 and its Consequences for Public Management. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Books.Google Scholar
  25. Paul, Diane (1975).The Politics of the Property Tax. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  26. Rafuse, Robert W. (1979) “Proposition 13: Initial Impacts on the Finances of Four County Governments.”National Tax Journal 32: 229–242.Google Scholar
  27. Riecken, Henry W., and Robert F. Boruch (1974).Social Experimentation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schneider, William (1979). “Punching Through the Jarvis Myth.” In Arthur B. Laffer and Jan P. Seymour (eds.),The Economics of the Revolt. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  29. Sears, David O. (1978). “The Jarvis Amendment: Self-Interest or Symbolic Politics.” Mimeo, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  30. Sigelman, Lee, David Lowery, and Roland Smith, (1982). “The Tax Revolt: A Comparative State Analysis.”Western Political Quarterly, in press.Google Scholar
  31. Tillinghast, Diana S. (1980). “Direct Magnitude Estimation Scales in Public Opinion Surveys.”Public Opinions Quarterly 44: 377–384.Google Scholar
  32. Tufte, Edward R. (1978).Political Control of the Economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Lowery
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of KentuckyUSA

Personalised recommendations