Skip to main content

Standing Tiebout on his Head: Tax Capitalization and the Monopoly Power of Local Governments

Public Choice volume 108, pages 101–122 (2001)Cite this article

Abstract

Much of the public finance literature argues that localgovernments behave competitively due to residents' ease of exitand entry. The model presented here challenges this widespreadconclusion. Though it is costless to relocate to anotherlocality, the presence of tax capitalization makes it impossiblefor land-owners to avoid monopolistic pricing of public servicesby moving; land-owners can only choose between paying the taxdirectly, or paying it indirectly in the form of a lower sale valuefor their housing if they exit. In consequence, the only realcheck on local governments comes through imperfectly functioningelectoral channels.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Arnott, R. and Stiglitz, J. (1973). Aggregate land rents, expenditures on public goods, and optimal city size. Quarterly Journal of Economics 43: 471-500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D. (1994). Electoral competition with informed and uninformed voters. American Political Science Review 88: 33-47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. and Gordon, D. (1983). A positive theory of monetary policy in a natural rate model. Journal of Political Economy 41: 589-610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boadway, R. and Flatters, F. (1982). Efficiency and equalization payments in a federal system of government: A synthesis and extension of recent results. Canadian Journal of Economics 15: 613-633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. and Londregan, J. (1995). Redistributive politics and economic efficiency. American Political Science Review 89: 856-866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. and Londregan, J. (1996). The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics 58: 1132-1155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epple, D. and Zelenitz, A. (1981). The implications of competition among jurisdictions: Does Tiebout need politics? Journal of Political Economy 89: 1197-1217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, G. (1996). The worst tax?: A history of the property tax in America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, S. and Summers, L. (1989). Should governments learn to live with inflation? American Economic Review 79: 382-387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1996). Electoral competition and special interest politics. Review of Economic Studies 63: 265-286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman, R. (1988). Markets, government, and the ‘new’ political economy. In A. Auerbach and M. Feldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Public Economics. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kydland, F. and Prescott, E. (1977). Rules rather than discretion: The inconsistency of optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy 85: 473-491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindbeck, A. and Weibull, J. (1987). Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition. Public Choice 52: 273-297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Vasquez, J. and Ihlanfeldt, K. (1987). Why property tax capitalization rates differ: A critical analysis. In J. Quigley (Ed.), Perspectives on local public finance and public policy, Vol. 3. Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mieszkowski, P. and Zodrow, G. (1989). Taxation and the Tiebout model: The differential effects of head taxes, taxes on land rents, and property taxes. Journal of Economic Literature 27: 1098-1146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nechyba, T. (1997). Local property and state income taxes: The role of interjurisdictional competition and collusion. Journal of Political Economy 105: 361-384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, S. (1992). Voters as fiscal conservatives. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 327-361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, K. (1985). The optimal degree of commitment to an intermediate monetary target. Quarterly Journal of Economics 100: 1169-1190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (1983). Tiebout models and the competitive ideal: An essay on the political economy of local government. In J. Quigley (Ed.), Perspectives on local public finance and public policy, Vol. 1. Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thisse, J. and Zoller, H. (Eds.) (1983). Locational analysis of public facilities. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64: 416-424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittman, D. (1977). Candidates with policy preferences: A dynamic model. Journal of Economic Theory 14: 180-189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure: Why political institutions are efficient. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yinger, J., Bloom, H., Börsch-Supan, A. and Ladd, H. (1988). Property taxes and house values: The theory and estimation of intrajurisdictional property tax capitalization. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yinger, J. (1985). Inefficiency and the median voter: property taxes, capitalization, and the theory of the second best. In J. Quigley (Ed.), Perspectives on local public finance and public policy. Vol. 2. Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zodrow, G. (Ed.) (1983). Local provision of public services: The Tiebout model after twenty-five years. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Center for Study of Public Choice, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030-0000, U.S.A.

    Bryan Caplan

Authors
  1. Bryan Caplan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caplan, B. Standing Tiebout on his Head: Tax Capitalization and the Monopoly Power of Local Governments. Public Choice 108, 101–122 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017564623294

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017564623294

Keywords

  • Local Government
  • Public Finance
  • Finance Literature
  • Lower Sale
  • Monopolistic Price