This article re-examines whether direct democracy mechanisms influence government fiscal behavior. The study builds on prior research by using a large sample of smaller U.S. cities, spending on specific policy areas, and an additional mechanism—the citizen advisory committee. These committees are included because they are prevalent in local government charters and are employed up front in the decision process. The results indicate that direct democracy mechanisms are either associated with higher spending levels or are not significant factors in spending decisions, indicating that local government fiscal behavior may be somewhat resistant to these types of institutional constraints.
AchenChristopher H.2000. Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Political Methodology, July 20–22, at Los Angeles, CA.
2.
BernerMaureen. 2001. Citizen participation in local government budgeting. Popular Government66 (3): 23–30.
3.
ChatterjeeSampritHadiAli S.2006. Regression analysis by example. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
4.
CheckowayBarryVan TillJon. 1978. What do we know about citizen participation? A selective review of research. In Citizen participation in America, ed. LangtonStuart, 25–42. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
5.
EbdonCarolFranklinAimee L.2006. Citizen participation in budgeting theory. Public Administration Review66:437–447.
6.
FarnhamPaul G.1990. The impact of citizen influence on local government expenditure. Public Choice64:201–212.
7.
FeiockRichardIhlanfeldtKeithMcDonaldLynn. 2008. Housing values and the density of political representation at the local level. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University.
8.
FeldLars P.FischerJustina A. V.KirchgassnerGebhard. 2006. The effect of direct democracy on income redistribution: Evidence for Switzerland. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1837; STICERD, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) Working Paper No. PEPP-23. http://ssrn.com/abstract=944450.
9.
FrenchEdward P.2004. Form of government and per capita expenditures: An evaluation of small cities and towns. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, & Financial Management16:193–209.
10.
GerberElizabeth R.1996. Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science40:99–128.
11.
GerberElizabeth R.2007. The impact of direct democracy on local government fiscal policy. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
12.
HamiltonHoward D.1970. Direct legislation: Some implications of open housing referenda. American Political Science Review64:124–137.
13.
HolcombeRandall G.KennyLawrence W.2008. Does restricting choice in referenda enable governments to spend more?Public Choice136:87–101.
14.
JacobyWilliam G.1999. Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April, at Chicago, IL.
15.
KeeleLukeKellyNathan J.2006. Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis14:186–205.
16.
MaserSteven M.1998. Constitutions as relational contracts: Explaining procedural safeguards in municipal charters. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory8:527–564.
17.
MaslowA. H. 1943. The theory of human motivation. Psychological Review50:370–396.
18.
MatsusakaJohn G.1995. Fiscal effects of the voter initiative: Evidence from the last 30 years. Journal of Political Economy103:587–623.
19.
NorthDouglass C.1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
20.
OstromElinor. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
ParkJongsunMcCabeBarbara CoyleFeiockRichard C.in press. Direct democracy provisions and local government fiscal choices. American Review of Public Administration.
22.
RobinsonScott E.CaverFloun’sayMeierKenneth J.O’ TooleLaurence J.Jr. 2007. Explaining policy punctuations: Bureaucratization and budget change. American Journal of Political Science51:140–150.
23.
RubinIrene. 1993. The politics of public budgeting: Getting and spending, borrowing and balancing. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
24.
RyuJay E.BowlingCynthia J.ChoChung-LaeWrightDeil S.2008. Exploring explanations of state agency budgets: Institutional budget actors or exogenous environment?Public Budgeting and Finance28 (3): 23–47.
25.
SanterreRexford E.1986. Representative versus direct democracy: A Tiebout test of relative performance. Public Choice48:58–63.
26.
SanterreRexford E.1989. Representative versus direct democracy: Are there any expenditure differences?Public Choice60:145–154.
27.
SchallerLyle E.1964. Is the citizen advisory committee a threat to representative government?Public Administration Review24:175–179.
28.
ThurmaierKurt M.WilloughbyKatherine G.2001. Policy and politics in state budgeting. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
29.
TieboutCharles M.1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64:416–424.
30.
TolbertCaroline J.McNealRamona S.SmithDaniel A.2003. Enhancing civic engagement: The effect of direct democracy on political participation and knowledge. State Politics and Policy Quarterly3 (1): 23–41.
31.
TsayRuey S.2005. Analysis of financial time series. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
32.
WildavskyAaronCaidenNaomi. 2003. The new politics of the budgetary process. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman.
33.
ZaxJeffrey S.1989. Initiatives and government expenditures. Public Choice63:267–277.
