Abstract
Theories of the size of government focus on either the demandfor government or the supply of tax revenues. Demand sidetheories such as those of Peltzman, Meltzer and Richard,Husted and Kenny, and Lott and Kenny are essentially politicaltheories. They emphasize the role of voters or interest groupsin expanding government. Supply side theories such as those ofKau and Rubin, Baumol, West, and Ferris and West emphasize theability of government to collect taxes. In this paper, wecombine both demand and supply side theories. For demand, weuse the Poole-Rosenthal time series data on the ideology ofCongress, on the theory that all political forces mustultimately express themselves in voting which is measured byideology. For supply, we use the Kau-Rubin measures of theability of government to collect taxes as a function of thedeadweight costs of tax collection and ability of individualsto hide revenues. We find that female labor forceparticipation and the associated ability to tax femaleproductivity is the most important factor associated withgovernment, and it alone explains about 60% of the actualgrowth of government. The ideology of the Senate is alsosignificant, but has a small effect. This paper may be thefirst to examine the influence of ideology on the time path ofa policy; other research examining ideology (including ours)has been cross sectional. Further research on the role ofideology in changing policies over time is clearly warranted.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baumol,W.J. (1967). Macroeconomcs of unbalanced growth. American Economic Review 57: 415-426.
Becker, G.S. (1985). Public policies, pressure groups, and deadweight costs. Journal of Public Economics 28: 329-347.
Becker, G.S. and Mulligan, C.B. (1998). Accounting for the growth of government. Place: University of Chicago.
Becker, G.S. and Mulligan, C.B. (1999). Deadweight costs and the size of government. Place: University of Chicago.
Brennan, G. and Buchanan, J.M. (1980). The power to tax. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.
Chappell, H.W. (1982). Campaign contributions and congressional voting: A simultaneous probit-tobit model. Review of Economics and Statistics 64: 77-83.
Dickey, D.A. and Fuller,W.A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica 49: 1057-1072.
Ferris, J.S. and West, E.G. (1996). Testing theories of real government size: U.S. experience, 1959-89. Southern Economic Journal 62: 537-553.
Hettich, W. and Winer, S.L. (1988). Economic and political foundations of tax structure. American Economic Review 78: 701-712.
Hinich, M.J. and Munger, M.C. (1996). Ideology and the theory of public choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Holcombe, R.G. (1996). The growth of the federal government in the 1920s. Cato Journal 16: 175-200.
Holsey, C.M. and Borcherding, T.E. (1997). Why does government's share of national income grow? An assessment of the recent literature on the U.S. experience. In D.C.Mueller (Ed.), Perspectives on public choice: A handbook. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Husted, T.A. and Kenny, L.W. (1997). The effect of the expansion of the voting franchise on the size of government. Journal of Political Economy 108: 54-82.
Kalt, J.P. and Zupan, M.A. (1984). Capture and ideology in the economic theory of politics. American Economic Review 74: 279-300.
Kau, J.B. and Rubin, P.H. (1979). Self-interest, ideology and logrolling in congressional voting. Journal of Law and Economics 22: 365-384.
Kau, J.B. and Rubin, P.H. (1981). The size of government. Public Choice 37: 261-274.
Kau, J.B. and Rubin, P.H. (1993). Ideology, voting, and shirking. Public Choice 76: 151-172.
Kau, J.B., Keenan, D. and Rubin, P.H. (1982). A general equilibrium model of congressional voting. Quarterly Journal of Economics 97: 271-293.
Krusell, P. and Ríos-Rull, J.-V. (1999). On the size of U.S. government: Political economy in the neoclassical growth model. American Economic Review 89: 1156-1181.
Lott, J.R. Jr, and Davis, M.L. (1992). A critical review and extension of the political shirking literature. Public Choice 74: 461-484.
Lott, J.R., Jr. and Kenny, L. (1999). Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government. Journal of Political Economy 6: 1163-1198.
Meltzer, A.H. and Richard, S.F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy 89: 914-927.
Meltzer, A.H. and Richard, S.F. (1983). Tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Public Choice 41: 403-437.
Mueller, D.C. (1989). Public choice II. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation and social rigidities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Peltzman, S. (1980). The growth of government. Journal of Law and Economics 23: 209-288.
Peltzman, S. (1984). Constituent interest and congressional voting. Journal of Law and Economics 27: 181-210.
Peltzman, S. (1985). An economic interpretation of the history of congressional voting in the twentieth century. American Economic Review 75: 656-675.
Poole, K.T. and Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Stigler, G.J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2: 3-21.
Stock, J. and Watson, M. (1988). Variable trends in economic time series. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2: 147-174.
Stratmann, T. (1992a). Are contributors rational? Untangling strategies of political action committees. Journal of Political Economy 100: 646-664.
Stratmann, T. (1992b). The effects of logrolling on congressional voting. American Economic Review 82: 1162-1176.
West, E.G. (1991). Secular cost changes and the size of government: Towards a generalized theory. Journal of Public Economics 45: 363-381.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kau, J.B., Rubin, P.H. The Growth of Government: Sources and Limits. Public Choice 113, 389–402 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020884121375
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020884121375