Advertisement

Papers of the Regional Science Association

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 113–139 | Cite as

Tiebout models of community structure

  • James L. Barr
Urban Models

Keywords

Community Structure Tiebout Model 
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. [1]
    Barr, J. L. “City Size, Land Rent and the Supply of Publich Goods,”Regional and Urban Economics, 1972, pp. 67–103.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Barr, J. L., and O. A. Davis, “An Elementary Political and Economic Theory of Local Expenditures,”Southern Economic Journal, XXXIII, October, 1966, pp. 149–165.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bergstrom, T., and R. Goodman. “Private Demands for Public Goods,” forthcoming,American Economic Review.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bowen, J., “The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, LVIII, November, 1943, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Buchanan, J. M. “An Economic Theory of Clubs,”Economica, XXXII, February, 1965, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Buchanan, J. M., and C. Goetz. “Efficiency Limits of Fiscal Mobility: An Assessment of the Tiebout Model,” Virginia Polytechnic Institute, mimeo, 1972.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Davis, O. A., and A. Whinston. “The Economics of Complex Systems: The Case of Municipal Zoning,”Kyklos, XVII, 1964, pp. 419–446.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Debreu, G., and H. Scarf. “A Limit Theorem on the Core of a Competitive Economy,”International Economic Review, XXI, September, 1963, pp. 235–246.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Foley, D. “Resource Allocation in the Public Sector,”Yale Economic Essays, 1967, pp. 45–102.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Foley, D., “Lindahl's Solution and the Core of an Economy with Collective Goods,”Econometrica, XXXVIII, January, 1970, pp. 66–72.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Heller, I., and C. B. Tompkins. “An Extension of a Theorem of Dantzig,”Linear Inequalities and Related Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Koleda, M. S. “A Public Good Model of Governmental Consolidation,”Urban Studies, June, 1971, pp. 103–110.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Koopmans, T., and M. Beckmann. “Assignment Problems and the Location of Economic Activities,”Econometrica, XXV, 1957, pp. 53–76.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Oates, W. “The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis,”Journal of Political Economy, LXXVII, November, 1969, pp. 957–971.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Olson, E. “A Competitive Theory of the Housing Market,”American Economic Review, LIX, September, 1969, pp. 612–621.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Pauly, M. “Clubs, Commonality, and the Core,”Economica, XXXV, August, 1968, pp. 314–324.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Pauly, M. “Cores and Clubs,”Public Choice, Fall, 1970, pp. 53–66.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    “Quasi-Cores in a Monetary Economy with Nonconvex Preferences,”Econometrica, XXXIV, October, 1966, pp. 805–827.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Shapley, L. S., and M. Shubik. “Pure Competition, Coalition Power, and Fair Division,”International Economic Review, X, October, 1969, pp. 337–362.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Simmonard, M.Linear Programming. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1966.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Tiebout, C. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,”The Journal of Political Economy, LXIV, October, 1956, pp. 416–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Regional Science Association 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • James L. Barr
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington L. UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations