Tiebout Hypothesis

  • Bruce W. Hamilton
Part of the The New Palgrave book series (NPA)


The essence of the Tiebout hypothesis is that there exists a mechanism for preference revelation regarding publicly provided goods so long as consumer-voters can choose among ‘jurisdictions’. The obvious application — the one both Tiebout and his followers had in mind — is that of a large number of autonomous suburban jurisdictions providing those goods which are generally in the domain of local governments, such a primary and secondary education, police and fire protection, sewer and water provision.


Scale Economy Community Size Local Public Good Preference Revelation Capitalization Effect 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bergstrom, T. and Goodman, R. 1973. Private demand for public goods. American Economic Review 63, June, 280–96.Google Scholar
  2. Bewley, T.F. 1981. A critique of Tiebout’s theory of local public expenditures. Econometrica 49, May, 713–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borcherding, T. and Deacon, R. 1972. The demand for the services of non-Federal Governments. American Economic Review 62, December, 891–901.Google Scholar
  4. Bowen, H.R. 1943. The interpretation of voting in the allocation of economic resources. Quarterly Journal of Economics 58, November, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellickson, B. 1971. Jurisdictional fragmentation and residential choice.American Economic Review 61, December, 334–9.Google Scholar
  6. Hamilton, B.W. 1975. Zoning and property taxation in a system of local governments.Urban Studies 12(2), June, 205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamilton, B.W. 1976. Capitalization of intrajurisdictional differences in local tax prices.American Economic Review 66(5), December. 743–53.Google Scholar
  8. Hanushek, E.A. 1986. The economics of schooling. Journal of Economic Literature 24, September, 1141–77.Google Scholar
  9. Henderson, J. V. 1985. The Tiebout Model: bring back the entrepreneurs.Journal of Political Economy 93, April, 248–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Oates, W.E. 1969. 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 77(8), November-December, 957–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Samuelson, P.A. 1954. The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics 36, November, 387–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tiebout, C. 1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64, October, 416–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Westhoff, F. 1977. Existence of equilibria in economies with a local public good. Journal of Economic Theory 14, 84–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce W. Hamilton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations