Building on the revenue structure theory developed by Hettich and Winer, with this paper we are the first to investigate the economic and political determinants of local tax mix choices. We thereby use panel data on 289 municipalities in the Flemish region of Belgium (period 1995–2002), where local governments enjoy extensive fiscal autonomy and have a wide choice of available tax instruments. Estimating a system of five reduced-form equations for the five central revenue sources (income, property, business, user fees, and other own revenues), our results show that economics plays a significantly more important role than politics in shaping the local tax mix. Moreover, supporting theoretical predictions about marginal cost equalization across available tax instruments, absolute reliance on each revenue source increases as the overall revenue requirement gets larger (a ‘scale effect’).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnselinL, 1988Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
2.
AshworthJGeysBHeyndelsB, 2005, “Government weakness and local public debt development in Flemish municipalities”International Tax and Public Finance12395–422
3.
AshworthJGeysBHeyndelsB, 2006, “Determinants of tax innovation: The case of environmental taxes in Flemish municipalities”European Journal of Political Economy22223–247
4.
BastiaensEDe BorgerBVannesteJ, 2001, “Expenditure and taxation effects of local public debt and unconditional grants: Evidence from Flemish municipalities”Cahiers Économiques de Bruxelles17177–89
5.
BelGMirallesA, 2010, “Choosing between service fees and budget funding to pay for local services: Empirical evidence from Spain”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2854–71
6.
BirdR MSlackE, 2007, “An approach to metropolitan governance and finance”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy25729–755
7.
BirdRSmartM, 2002, “Intergovernmental fiscal transfers: International lessons for developing countries”World Development30899–912
8.
BirdR MZoltE M, 2008, “Tax policy in emerging countries”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2673–86
9.
BlackleyPDeBoerL, 1987, “Tax base choice by local governments”Land Economics63227–236
10.
BorgeL-EFalchTTovmoP, 2008, “Public sector efficiency: The roles of political and budgetary institutions, fiscal capacity and democratic participation”Public Choice136475–495
11.
BruecknerJ, 2003, “Strategic interaction among governments: An overview of empirical studies”International Regional Science Review26175–188
12.
BucovetskySWilsonJ D, 1991, “Tax competition with two tax instruments”Regional Science and Urban Economics21333–350
13.
BuettnerT, 2007, “Equalization transfers and dynamic fiscal adjustment: Results for German municipalities and a US–German comparison”, WP 2007–07, Institute for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations, Lexington, KY
14.
BuettnerTWildasinD E, 2006, “The dynamics of municipal fiscal adjustment”Journal of Public Economics901115–1132
15.
ChattopadhyayRDufloE, 2004, “Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India”Econometrica721409–1443
16.
Costa-FontJ, 2010, “Does devolution lead to regional inequalities in welfare activity?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28435–449
17.
DeschouwerK, 1996, “Nationale partijen en gemeenteraadsverkiezingen”, inDe dorpsstraat is de Wetstraat Niet Eds BuelensJDeschouwerK, (VUB Press, Brussels) pp 13–25
18.
DwivediTSrivastavaK, 1978, “Optimality of least squares in the seemingly unrelated regressions model”Journal of Econometrics7391–395
19.
EdlundLPandeR, 2002, “Why have women become left-wing? The political gender gap and the decline in marriage”Quarterly Journal of Economics117917–961
20.
EggerPLarchMPfaffermayrMWaldeJ, 2009, “Small sample properties of maximum likelihood versus generalized method of moments based tests for spatially autocorrelated errors”Regional Science and Urban Economics39670–678
21.
EggertWHaulierA, 1999, “Capital taxation and production efficiency in an open economy”Economics Letters6285–96
22.
FivaJRattsøJ, 2007, “Local choice of property taxation: Evidence from Norway”Public Choice132457–480
GérardMJayetHPatyS, 2010, “Tax interactions among Belgian municipalities: Do interregional differences matter?”Regional Science and Urban Economics40336–342
25.
GeysB, 2006, “Looking across borders: A test of spatial policy interdependence using local government efficiency ratings”Journal of Urban Economics60443–462
26.
GeysB, 2007, “Government weakness and local public debt cycles: Evidence from Flemish municipalities”Local Government Studies33239–253
27.
GeysBMoesenW, 2009, “Exploring sources of local government technical inefficiency: Evidence from Flemish municipalities”Public Finance and Management91–29
28.
GeysBVermeirJ, 2008, “Taxation and presidential approval: Separate effects from tax burden and tax structure turbulence?”Public Choice135301–317
29.
GoeminneSGeysBSmoldersC, 2008, “Political fragmentation and projected tax revenues: Evidence from Flemish municipalities”International Tax and Public Finance15297–315
30.
GoodspeedT J, 1994, “Efficiency and equity consequences of decentralized government: An application to Spain”International Tax and Public Finance135–54
31.
GordonR H, 1986, Taxation of investment and savings in a world economy”American Economic Review761086–1102
32.
HallJ, 2006, “Fiscal competition and tax instrument choice: The role of income inequality”Economics Bulletin81–8
33.
HettichWWinerS, 1984, “A positive model of tax structure”Journal of Public Economics2467–87
34.
HettichWWinerS, 1988, “Economic and political foundations of tax structure”American Economic Review78701–712
35.
HettichWWinerS, 1999Democratic Choice and Taxation: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
36.
HeyndelsB, 2001, “Asymmetries in the flypaper effect: Empirical evidence for the Flemish municipalities”Applied Economics331329–1334
37.
HeyndelsBVuchelenJ, 1998, “Tax mimicking among Belgian municipalities”National Tax Journal5189–101
38.
InmanR, 1999, “On designing intergovernmental transfers with an application in the new South Africa”, inEssays in Honor of Wallace Oates Ed. SchwabR, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 222–252
39.
JohnP, 2001Local Governance in Western Europe (Sage, London)
40.
KennyL WWinerS L, 2006, “Tax systems in the world: An empirical investigation into the importance of tax bases, administration costs, scale and political regime”International Tax and Public Finance13181–215
41.
Lago-PeñasS, 2005, “Evolving federations and regional public deficits: Testing the bailout hypothesis in the Spanish case”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy23437–453
42.
LottJ RKennyL W, 1999, “Did women's suffrage change the size and scope of government?”Journal of Political Economy1071163–1198
43.
McGuireT J, 2001, “Alternatives to property taxation for local government”, inProperty Taxation and Local Government Finance Ed. OatesW E, (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA) pp 301–314
44.
NechybaT, 1997, “Local property and state income taxes: The role of interjurisdictional competition and collusion”Journal of Political Economy105352–383
45.
OatesW ESchwabR M, 2004, “What should local governments tax: Income or property?”, inCity Taxes, City Spending Ed. SchwartzA E, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 7–29
46.
PandeR, 2003, “Can mandated political representation increase policy influence for disadvantaged minorities? Theory and evidence from India”American Economic Review931132–1151
47.
RevelliF, 2005, “On spatial public finance empirics”International Tax and Public Finance12475–492
48.
RevelliFTovmoP, 2007, “Revealed yardstick competition: Local government efficiency patterns in Norway”Journal of Urban Economics62121–134
49.
RichardJ FTulkensHVerdonckM, 2005, “Tax interaction dynamics among Belgian municipalities 1984–1997”, EP 2005/48, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics, University College, London
50.
RihouxB, 2001, “Iedereen naar het politieke centrum en voorstander van de Nieuwe Politieke Cultuur?: De ideologische positionering van de lokale partijafdelingen in België”Tijdschrift van Dexia Bank2167–18
51.
Rodríguez-PoseASandallR, 2008, “From identity to the economy: Analysing the evolution of the decentralisation discourse”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2654–72
52.
RoubiniNSachsJ D, 1989, “Political and economic determinants of budget deficits in the industrial democracies”European Economic Review33903–938
53.
SjoquistD, 1981, “A median voter analysis of variations in the use of property taxes among local governments”Public Choice36273–285
54.
Solé-OlléASorribas-NavarroP, 2011, “The dynamic adjustment of local government budgets: Does Spain behave differently?”Applied Economics forthcoming
55.
SpryJ, 2005, “The effects of fiscal competition on local property and income tax reliance”Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy51–19
56.
StrumpfK S, 2001, “Government credibility and policy choice: Evidence from the Pennsylvania earned income tax”Journal of Public Economics80141–167
57.
SvalerydH, 2009, “Women's representation and public spending”European Journal of Political Economy25186–198
58.
TovmoP, 2007, “Budgetary procedures and deficits in Norwegian local governments”Economics of Governance837–49
59.
Van ParysSVerbekeT, 2007, “Tax competition among Belgian municipalities: A multi-dimensional battle?”, paper presented at the Spatial Econometrics Conference, 11–14 July, Cambridge; copy available from B Geys
60.
VolkerinkBDe HaanJ, 1999, “Political and institutional determinants of the tax mix: An empirical investigation for OECD countries”, WP No. 99–05, Yale School of Management, New Haven, CT
61.
WerckKHeyndelsBGeysB, 2008, “The impact of ‘central places’ on spatial spending patterns: Evidence from Flemish local government cultural expenditures”Journal of Cultural Economics3235–58
62.
WinerS LHettichW, 1991, “Debts and tariffs: An empirical investigation of the evolution of revenue systems”Journal of Public Economics45214–242
