Skip to main content

The Separation of Spending from Taxation: Implications for Collective Choices

Abstract

Our fiscal process divorces payment from use. Whilethis divorce has led many analysts of government to separatediscussion of public expenditures from their funding, or usefrom payment, we argue that this approach does not provide auseful framework for understanding our public choices. We arguethat it is the divorce of payment from use that underlies ourfiscal process and, rather than simply “dismiss out of hand”the study of our fiscal process, it should be an integral partof our study of government. Our framework for describing fiscalinstitutions indicates how our fiscal process invites rent-seekingbecause it allows beneficiaries of programs to avoid paymentfor those programs. We conclude by examining how various changesin the fiscal process may influence our public choices.

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

References

  • Black, D. (1958) The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H. R. (1943) "The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources." Quarterly Journal of Economics 58: 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1963) "The Economics of Earmarked Taxes." Journal of Political Economy 71: 457–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1967) Public Finance in Democratic Process. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, E. K. (1975) "Collective Choice and General Fund Financing," Journal of Political Economy 83: 377–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M., and Friedman, R. (1983) The Tryanny of the Status Quo. Orlando, Fl.: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frolich, N., and Oppenheimer, J. (1990) "Redistributive Politics: A Theory of Taxation for an Incumbent Democracy." Public Choice 64: 135–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, C. J. (1968) "Earmarked Taxes and Majority Rule Budgetary Processes." American Economic Review 58: 128–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettich, W., and Winer, S. (1984) "A Positive Model of Tax Structure." Journal of Public Economics 24: 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, W. J., and Nelson, M. A. (1989) "Interest Group Demand for Taxation." Public Choice 62: 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlow, M. L. (1992) "Intergovernmental Competition, Voice and Exit Options, and the Design of Fiscal Structure." Constitutional Political Economy 3: 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlow, M. L., and Orzechowski,W. (1988) "Controlling Leviathan Through Tax Reduction." Public Choice 58: 237–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orzechowski, W. (1991) "Reaganomics and the Use of Collective Rebates." Public Choice 69: 311–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, A., and Snell. R. (1995) Earmarking State Taxes. Denver, Col.: National Conference of State Legislatures.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, G. (1989) The Economics of Special Privilege and Rent Seeking. Norwell, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. E. (1988) "The Calculus of Consent: A Wicksellian Retrospective." Public Choice 56: 153–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. E., (ed.) (1991) Charging for Government. User Charges and Earmarked Taxes in Principle and Practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. E. (1992) "Grazing the Federal Budgetary Commons: The Rational Politics of Budgetary Irresponsibility." The Journal of Law and Politics IX: 105–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicksell, K. (1896) Finanztheoretische Untersuchungen, nebst Darstellung und Kritik des Steuerwesens Schwedens. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marlow, M.L., Orzechowski, W.P. The Separation of Spending from Taxation: Implications for Collective Choices. Constitutional Political Economy 8, 151–163 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009016509573

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009016509573

Keywords

  • Public Choice
  • Public Expenditure
  • Collective Choice
  • Process Divorce
  • Fiscal Process