Advertisement

European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 427–439 | Cite as

Political entrepreneurship and the formation of special districts

  • Alexander Fink
  • Richard E. Wagner
Article

Abstract

Where general purpose governments provide a bundle of services within their boundaries, special district governments provide specific services inside the boundaries of general purpose governments. The alternative to forming a special purpose government is providing the service within a general purpose government. Formation of a special district represents the establishment of a new political enterprise, in contrast to the addition of a new product line to an existing government. We explore the formation of special districts as a particular form of the universal entrepreneurial search for gain or profit from exchange. Political entrepreneurship, like market entrepreneurship, operates inside some framework of rules, and the formation of special districts reflects the search for political gain within that framework of rules. We use an entrepreneurial framework to formulate several hypotheses concerning the formation and organization of special districts.

Keywords

Special districts Political entrepreneurship Public enterprise Public–private interaction Enterprise-based public finance Constitutional political economy 

JEL Classification

D72 H11 H71 L32 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the participants of the Public Choice Society Meetings 2010 in Monterey, CA, and two anonymous referees for helpful suggestions.

References

  1. Austin, A. D. (1998). A positive model of special district formation. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 28, 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auteri, M., & Wagner, R. E. (2007). The organizational architecture of nonprofit governance. Public Organization Review, 7, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelrod, D. (1992). Shadow government: The hidden world of public authorities. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Backhaus, J. G. (1994). Assessing the performance of public enterprises: A public-choice approach. European Journal of Law and Economics, 1, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollens, S. A. (1986). Examining the link between state policy and the creation of local special districts. State and Local Government Review, 18, 117–124.Google Scholar
  6. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2004). Evolution in state governance structures: Unintended consequences of state tax and expenditure limitations. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 189–196.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M. (1963). The economics of earmarked taxes. Journal of Political Economy, 71, 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, J. B. (2006). Local government autonomy and state reliance on special district governments: A reassessment. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiLorenzo, T. J. (1981). The expenditure effects of restricting competition in local public service industries: The case of special districts. Public Choice, 37, 569–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein, R. A. (1995). Simple rules for a complex world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Feiock, R. C., & Carr, J. B. (2001). Incentives, entrepreneurs, and boundary change: A collective action framework. Urban Affairs Review, 36, 382–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster, K. A. (1997). The political economy of special-purpose government. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frey, B. S., & Eichenberger, R. (1996). FOCJ: Competitive governments for Europe. International Review of Law and Economics, 16, 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrido, E. N. (2007). Inter-municipal cooperation in Spain: Dealing with microscopic local government. In R. Hulst & A. van Montfort (Eds.), Inter-municipal cooperation in Europe (pp. 169–192). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goetz, C. J. (1968). Earmarked taxes and majority rule budgetary processes. American Economic Review, 58, 128–136.Google Scholar
  16. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. The American Political Science Review, 97, 233–243.Google Scholar
  17. Hulst, R., & van Montfort, A. (2007). Inter-municipal cooperation in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirzner, I. (1979). Perception, opportunity, and profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kornai, J. (1986). The soft budget constraint. Kyklos, 39, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kornai, J. (1998). The place of the soft budget constraint syndrome in economic theory. Journal of Comparative Economics, 26, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis, E. (1980). Public entrepreneurship: Toward a theory of bureaucratic power. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, P. G. (2000). The durability of local government structure: Evidence from California. State and Local Government Review, 32, 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacManus, S. A. (1981). Special district governments: A note on their use as property tax relief mechanisms in the 1970s. Journal of Politics, 43, 1206–1214.Google Scholar
  24. McCabe, B. C. (2000). Special-district formation among states. State and Local Government Review, 32, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mullins, D. R. (2004). Tax and expenditure limitations and the fiscal response of local government: Asymmetric intra-local fiscal effects. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24, 111–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson, R. H., McKenzie, K. R., & Norcross, E. (2008). Lessons from business improvement districts. Arlington, Va: Mercatus Center, Policy Primer No. 5.Google Scholar
  27. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  28. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  29. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. The American Political Science Review, 55, 831–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pauly, M. V., & Redisch, M. R. (1973). The not-for-profit hospital as a physicians’ cooperative. American Economic Review, 63, 87–99.Google Scholar
  31. Riker, W. (1962). The theory of political coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Romano, R. (1985). Law as a product: Some pieces of the incorporation puzzle. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1, 225–283.Google Scholar
  33. Ruiter, D. W. P. (2005). Is transaction cost economics applicable to public governance? European Journal of Law and Economics, 29, 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schelling, T. C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  35. Schneider, M., & Teske, P. (1995). Public entrepreneurs: Agents for change in American Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shadbegian, R. (1999). The effect of tax and expenditure limitations on the revenue structure of local government, 1862–1987. National Tax Journal, 52, 221–237.Google Scholar
  37. US Bureau of the Census. (1992). Census of Governments (Vol. 1, No. 1).Google Scholar
  38. US Bureau of the Census. (2002). Census of Governments (Vol. 1, No. 1).Google Scholar
  39. US Bureau of the Census. (2007). Census of Governments. http://www.census.gov/govs/cog/GovOrgTab03ss.html, Accessed March 28, 2010.
  40. Wagner, R. E. (2007). Fiscal sociology and the theory of public finance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  41. Wagner, R. E., & Weber, W. E. (1975). Competition, monopoly, and the organization of government in metropolitan areas. Journal of Law and Economics, 18(3), 661–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wald, J. K., & Long, M. S. (2007). The effect of state laws on capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 83, 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations