Skip to main content

The indirect effects of direct democracy: local government size and non-budgetary voter initiatives in Germany

Abstract

Recently, a wide and empirically backed consensus has emerged arguing that direct democratic control over government’s spending decisions through initiatives and referendums constrains government size. This paper extends the discussion to German direct democracy reforms of the mid-1990s, which granted voters rights to launch initiatives on local issues, but neither the right nor the responsibility of voting on the implied costs of these initiatives. An analysis of around 2300 voter initiatives in the population of around 13,000 German municipalities from 2002 to 2009 demonstrates that in this sample—and in contrast to most of the Swiss and US evidence—direct democracy causes an expansion of local government size on average by around 8 % in annual per capita expenditure and revenue per initiative (on economic projects). This quite substantial increase in government size is financed by an increase in local taxes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Matsusaka (2005) for an introduction.

  2. 2.

    Among others (Zax (1989), Farnham (1990), Matsusaka (1995), Camobreco (1998), Matsusaka (2000), Bails and Tieslau (2000), Besley and Case (2003), Blomberg et al. (2004), Matsusaka (2004), Marschall and Ruhil (2005), Primo (2010), Salvino et al. (2012) for the USA; Pommerehne (1978), Feld and Kirchgässner (2001), Feld and Matsusaka (2003), Bodmer (2004), Funk and Gathmann (2011) for Switzerland; and Hinnerich and Pettersson-Lidbom (2014) for Sweden.

  3. 3.

    There are two recent exceptions. Firstly, Blume et al. (2011) compare local government expenditures in the state of Baden-Württemberg to that of the neighboring state of Bayern exploiting the fact that direct democracy was introduced at different time points in the two states. The study, however, relies on small samples, as the local-level fiscal data are aggregated to state level. Secondly, Asatryan et al. (forthcoming) and Asatryan et al. (2014) address some of the empirical concerns by presenting quasi-experimental evidence on, respectively, spending- and taxation-related effects of initiatives. However, the papers concentrate only on one German state, Bayern. All three studies find that in their given samples, direct democracy expands local government size.

  4. 4.

    Except for a mandatory referendum for territorial changes.

  5. 5.

    The only exception is the state of Baden-Württemberg, where the right of the initiative was introduced to municipal law in 1956.

  6. 6.

    To avoid confusion, throughout the study I will use the German names of the Länder (the states) rather than their English translations.

  7. 7.

    Including Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt and Thüringen in 1990–1993, and Berlin later in 2005.

  8. 8.

    Including Bayern, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-Pfalz and Saarland in 1993–1998, Schleswig-Holstein earlier in 1990, and Baden-Württemberg, as noted, in 1956.

  9. 9.

    Around 900,000 signatures (10 % threshold) were to be collected in 2 weeks time.

  10. 10.

    Low signature and quorum thresholds, unlimited time for signature collection, absence of a cost recovery proposal requirement, relatively broad areas where initiatives are allowed, etc.

  11. 11.

    With higher quorum thresholds, a few weeks of time for signature collection, cost recovery proposal requirement, wide restrictions on topics of initiatives, etc.

  12. 12.

    I exclude these from the sample because initiatives are implemented either on city (same as state) or city-district levels, both being incomparable to municipalities.

  13. 13.

    The property tax may additionally have a different rate on agricultural land.

  14. 14.

    Initiative is a stronger measure, since, as defined above, it captures only those petitions that passed the legislative process and were put to vote. I nevertheless run regression on both variables, since a failed petition (one which did not reach the polls) may still be relevant through a signal (or a threat) to politicians to implement the required policy (and thus eliminating the need for an initiative).

  15. 15.

    Counties are a unit of organization one step higher than the towns and are equivalent to the European NUTS3 classification. They are defined either on the level of individual cities (“Kreisfreie Stadt”) or, in rural areas, on the level of counties including several towns (“Landkreis”).

  16. 16.

    The literature deals with these issues in different ways. Most within-country studies directly compare sub-national units with and without direct democratic institutions and control for time-invariant factors by fixed effects. Cross-country studies have a similar empirical strategy. These can be questioned on the grounds of institutions being endogenous. Recent studies have applied arguably more credible identification techniques such as the use of natural experiments by Hinnerich and Pettersson-Lidbom (2014) and Asatryan et al. (forthcoming), respectively, in Sweden and Germany. In contrast to these, all units in my setting have some institutions of direct democracy, thus I look at the actual use of direct democratic instruments.

  17. 17.

    Some well-known applications are, for example, Angrist (1990) or Imbens and Klaauw (1995). Angrist and Krueger (2001) summarizes other similar applications, and Angrist (2001) extends the discussion to cases where the (second stage) dependent variable is also limited.

  18. 18.

    More instruments can be constructed by looking at additional details of state-level direct democratic institutions. These include the presence of a list of positive topics in state constitutions, the maximum allowed time to collect signatures, and a quorum threshold on the number of casted eligible votes for the initiatives to be approved. The working paper version of this article presents analysis also with these instruments (Asatryan 2014). It shows that signature requirements are the most important driver of initiatives.

  19. 19.

    Although some state- and size-dependent differences exist, typically German municipalities are responsible for the provision of important public goods to citizens such as kindergartens, elementary schools, utility and infrastructure facilities, local streets, athletic areas, basic health care

  20. 20.

    The tax bases are uniformly defined nationwide, but municipalities have complete independence in deciding the tax rate by setting a tax multiplier.

  21. 21.

    Property tax type-A is applied on agricultural land, which raises less than 1 % of total revenue property; thus, I neglect it in the analysis.

  22. 22.

    And not data on debt since, although preferred, stock data on local government borrowing for this large sample are not available.

  23. 23.

    At first sight, the larger effect of economic petitions relative to infrastructure ones may seem somewhat surprising as the infrastructural projects are on average more costly (around 65,000 Euros per petition according to the cost recovery proposal) than the economic projects (less than 40,000 Euros). However, as I argue throughout the paper, it is possible that the direct costs of the initiatives (in any case quite low for both categories as an average town spends around 15 million Euros annually) are outweighed by indirect losses due to, for example, unrealized private sector investments—a discussion to which I come back in the conclusions.

References

  1. Angrist, J. D. (1990). Lifetime earnings and the vietnam era draft lottery: Evidence from social security administrative records. The American Economic Review, 80(3), 313–336.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Angrist, J. D. (2001). Estimation of limited dependent variable models with dummy endogenous regressors. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 19(1), 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001). Instrumental variables and the search for identification: From supply and demand to natural experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arnold, F., & Freier, R. (2015). Signature requirements and citizen initiatives: Quasi-experimental evidence from Germany. Public Choice, 162, 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Asatryan, Z. (2014). The indirect effects of direct democracy: Local government size and non-budgetary voter initiatives. ZEW Discussion Papers 14-004.

  7. Asatryan, Z., Baskaran, T., Grigoriadis, T., & Heinemann, F. (forthcoming). Direct democracy and local public finances under cooperative federalism. Scandinavian Journal of Economics.

  8. Asatryan, Z., Baskaran, T., & Heinemann, F. (2014). The effect of direct democracy on the level and structure of local taxes. Discussion Paper 14-003, ZEW.

  9. Asatryan, Z., & De Witte, K. (2015). Direct democracy and local government efficiency. European Journal of Political Economy, 39, 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bails, D., & Tieslau, M. A. (2000). The impact of fiscal constitutions on state and local expenditures. Cato Journal, 20(2), 255–277.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Besley, T., & Case, A. (2003). Political institutions and policy outcomes: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(1), 7–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Blomberg, S. B., Hess, G. D., & Weerapana, A. (2004). The impact of voter initiatives on economic activity. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(1), 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Blume, L., Döring, T., & Voigt, S. (2011). Fiscal effects of reforming local constitutions: Recent German experiences. Urban Studies, 48(10), 2123–2140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blume, L., Müller, J., & Voigt, S. (2009). The economic effects of direct democracy—a first global assessment. Public Choice, 140(3–4), 431–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Blume, L., & Voigt, S. (2012). Institutional details matter—more economic effects of direct democracy. Economics of Governance, 13(4), 287–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bodmer, F. (2004). Why direct democracy could not stop the growth of government in Switzerland during the 1990’s. Working paper, University of Basel.

  17. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. (1980). The power to tax: Analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Camobreco, J. F. (1998). Preferences, fiscal policies, and the initiative process. Journal of Politics, 60, 819–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eder, C., Vatter, A., & Freitag, M. (2009). Institutional design and the use of direct democracy: Evidence from the German Länder. West European Politics, 32(3), 611–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Farnham, P. G. (1990). The impact of citizen influence on local government expenditures. Public Choice, 64(3), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Feld, L. P., & Kirchgässner, G. (1999). Public debt and budgetary procedures: Top down or bottom up? Some evidence from Swiss municipalities. In J. M. Poterba (Ed.), Fiscal institutions and fiscal performance (pp. 151–180). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Feld, L. P., & Kirchgässner, G. (2001). Does direct democracy reduce public debt? Evidence from Swiss municipalities. Public Choice, 109(3–4), 347–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Feld, P. L., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2003). Budget referendums and government spending: Evidence from the Swiss Cantons. Journal of Public Economics, 87(12), 2703–2724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Freitag, M., & Vatter, A. (2006). Initiatives, referendums, and the tax state. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(1), 89–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Frey, B. S., Kucher, M., & Stutzer, A. (2001). Outcome, process and power in direct democracy—new econometric results. Public Choice, 107(3–4), 271–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Funk, P., & Gathmann, C. (2011). Does direct democracy reduce the size of government? New evidence from historical data, 1890–2000. Economic Journal, 121(557), 1252–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hinnerich, B. T., & Pettersson-Lidbom, P. (2014). Democracy redistribution and political participation: Evidence from Sweden 1919–1938. Econometrica, 82(3), 961–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Imbens, G., & Klaauw, W. V. D. (1995). Evaluating the cost of conscription in the Netherlands. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13(2), 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kiewiet, D., & Szakaly, K. (1996). Constitutional limitations on borrowing: An analysis of state bonded indebtedness. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 12(1), 62–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kirchgässner, G. (2000). The effects of fiscal institutions on public finance: A survey of the empirical evidence. In S. L. Winer & H. Shibata (Eds.), Political economy and public finance: The role of political economy in the theory and practice of public economics (pp. 145–177). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Marschall, M. J., & Ruhil, A. (2005). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative reconsidered: Addressing endogeneity. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5(4), 327–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative: Evidence from the last 30 years. Journal of Political Economy, 103(3), 587–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Matsusaka, J. G. (2000). Fiscal effect of the voter initiatives in the first half of the twentieth century. Journal of Law and Economics, 43, 619–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). For the many or the few: The initiative, public policy, and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Direct democracy works. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Matsusaka, J. G. (2009). Direct democracy and public employees. American Economic Review, 99(5), 2227–2246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Matsusaka, J. G., & McCarty, N. M. (2001). Political resource allocation: Benefits and costs of voter initiatives. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17(2), 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Peltzman, S. (1992). Voters as fiscal conservatives. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 327–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pommerehne, W. (1978). Institutional approaches to public expenditures: Empirical evidence from Swiss municipalities. Journal of Public Economics, 9(2), 255–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Primo, D. M. (2010). The effect of initiatives on local government spending. Journal of Theoretical Politcs, 22(1), 6–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1979). Bureaucrats versus voters: On the political economy of resource allocation by direct democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93(4), 563–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Salvino, R., Tasto, M. T., & Turnbull, G. K. (2012). A direct test of direct democracy: New England town meetings. Applied Economics, 44(18), 2393–2402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schiller, T. (2011). Local direct democracy in Germany—varieties in a federal state. In T. Schiller (Ed.), Local direct democracy in Europe (pp. 54–71). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Setala, M., & Schiller, T. (2012). Citizens’ initiatives in Europe: Procedures and consequences of agenda-setting by citizens. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Verhulst, J., & Nijeboer, A. (2008). Direct democracy: Facts and arguments about the introduction of initiative and referendum. Brussels: Democracy International.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wollmann, H. (2000). Local government modernization in Germany: Between incrementalism and reform waves. Public Administration, 78(4), 915–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zax, J. S. (1989). Initiatives and government expenditures. Public Choice, 63(3), 267–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Thushyanthan Baskaran, Nadja Braun Binder, Benny Geys, Annika Havlik, Friedrich Heinemann, François Laisney, Frank Rehmet, Frank Streif, Johannes Voget for valuable comments, as well as Amadeo Dal Borgo for excellent research assistance. I also thank the editor Ron Davies and two anonymous referees for excellent suggestions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zareh Asatryan.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6 Institutions of local-level direct democracy across German Länder, 2002–2009
Table 7 Summary statistics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asatryan, Z. The indirect effects of direct democracy: local government size and non-budgetary voter initiatives in Germany. Int Tax Public Finance 23, 580–601 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-015-9380-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Direct democracy
  • Local public finances
  • Germany

JEL Classification

  • D72
  • D78
  • H70