Government consolidations remain highly controversial, and the proposition that consolidated governments operate more efficiently than smaller government units is a contested claim. This research evaluates the outcomes of Indiana property tax consolidation reform of 2008. It documents 19.0–27.0 percent cost savings from consolidated tax administration and estimates cost elasticities. The study finds that assessment costs are highly elastic to assessor workloads, wage levels, and the percentage of agricultural land, but not the assessment quality. Although these findings may assist other fragmented local government units in evaluating vertical consolidation proposals, they may not directly generalize to other areas of government.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1963. The role of the states in strengthening the property tax. Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
2.
AndrewsMatthewDuncombeWilliamYingerJohn. 2002. Revisiting economies of size in American education: Are we any closer to a consensus?Economics of Education Review21:245–62.
BentonJ. EdwinGambleDarwin. 1984. City/county consolidation and economies of scale: Evidence from a time-series analysis in Jacksonville, Florida. Social Science Quarterly65:190–98.
6.
BirdRichard M.SlackEnid. 2002. Land and property taxation around the world: A review. Journal of Property Tax Assessment and Administration7:31–80.
7.
BowmanJohn H.MikesellJohn L.. 1978. Uniform assessment of property: Returns from institutional remedies. National Tax Journal31:137–52.
8.
BoyneGeorge A.1992. Local government structure and performance: Lessons from America?Public Administration70:333–57.
9.
BradfordDavid F.MaltRichard A.OatesWallace E.. 1969. The rising cost of local public services: Some evidence and reflections. National Tax Journal22:185–202.
10.
BrownMark D.AlmyRichardDenneRobert C.. 2005. Statewide property tax equalization study policy report. Indianapolis: Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute.
11.
ByersKatharine V.MikesellJohnPowellOrville. 2005. Indiana township government: A report to the Indiana Township Association. Indianapolis: Institute for Family and Social Responsibility, Indiana University.
12.
ByrnesJoelDolleryBrian. 2002. Do economies of scale exist in Australian local government? A review of the research evidence. Urban Policy and Research20:391–414.
13.
ChristensenLaurits R.JorgensonDale W.LauLawrence J.. 1973. Transcendental logarithmic production frontiers. The Review of Economics and Statistics55:28–45.
14.
ClinePatrick M.2014. Quiet crisis: The Kernan–Shepard Report and Indiana’s need to eliminate township government. Indiana Law Review48:273–312.
15.
CorbinBryan. 2007. Township assessors speak out against plan to eliminate their positions. Evansville, IN: Evansville Courier and Press.
16.
DeaconR.1978. A demand model for the local public sector. Review of Economics and Statistics60:184–92.
17.
DolleryBrian E.KorttMichael A.GrantBligh. 2013. Funding the future: Financial sustainability and infrastructure finance in Australian local government. Sydney, Australia: Federation Press.
18.
EbertsRandall W.GronbergTimothy J.. 1990. Structure, conduct, and performance in the local public sector. National Tax Journal43:165–73.
19.
GrosskopfShawnaYaisawarngSuthathip. 1990Economies of scope in the provision of local public services. National Tax Journal43:61–74.
20.
HawkinsChristopher V.FeiockRichard. 2010. Joint ventures, economic development policy, and the role of local governing institutions. The American Review of Public Administration41:329–47.
21.
HayesKathy. 1986. Local public good demands and demographic effects. Applied Economics18:1039–46.
22.
HirschWerner Z.1959. Expenditure implications of metropolitan growth and consolidation. The Review of Economics and Statistics41:232–41.
23.
HirschWerner Z.1964. Local versus area wide urban government services. National Tax Journal17:331–39.
24.
HolzerMarcFryJohn C.. 2011. Shared services and municipal consolidation: A critical analysis. Washington, DC: Public Technology Institute.
Indiana Office of Management and Budget and the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance. 2009. Township assessor elimination: A policy evaluation and implementation report. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Local Government Finance.
IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers). 2010. Standard on ratio studies. Kansas City, MO: International Association of Assessing Officers.
29.
JensenJens Peter. 1931. Property taxation in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
JimenezBenedict S.2016. Externalities in the fragmented metropolis local institutional choices and the efficiency–equity trade-off. The American Review of Public Administration46:314–36.
31.
KennanJoseph E.ShepardRandall T.. 2007. Streamlining local government. Indianapolis: Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform.
32.
KlacikDrewNunnSamuelKraussJohnKirlinJohnPalmerJamie. 2004. Effective government reform can be achieved in Indiana. Report No. 04-C16. Center for Urban Policy and the Environment. Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. http://hdl.handle.net/2450/553 (accessed September 13, 2014).
33.
KodrzyckiYolanda K.2013. The quest for cost-efficient local government in New England: What role for regional consolidation?New England Public Policy Center, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Report No. 13-1. https://www.bostonfed.org/economic/neppc/researchreports/2013/neppcrr1301.pdf (accessed October 04, 2015).
34.
KrupaOlha. 2012. An analysis of Indiana property tax reform. State Tax Notes65:655–62.
35.
KrupaOlha. 2015a. Determinants of assessment quality: An examination of a recently reformed Midwestern State. Journal of Property Tax Assessment and Administration12:5–21.
36.
KrupaOlha. 2015b. Vertical consolidation of Indiana’s property tax system. State Tax Notes78:175.
37.
LamotheMeeyoungLamotheScott. 2009. Beyond the search for competition in social service contracting procurement, consolidation, and accountability. The American Review of Public Administration39:164–88.
38.
LelandSuzanneThurmaierKurt. 2005. When efficiency is unbelievable: Normative lessons from 30 years of city–county consolidations. Public Administration Review65:475–89.
39.
LelandSuzanneThurmaierKurt. 2014. Political and functional local government consolidation. The challenges for core public administration values and regional reform. The American Review of Public Administration44:29S–46S.
LoweryDavid. 1982. Public choice when services are costs: The divergent case of assessment administration. American Journal of Political Science26:57–76.
42.
LyonsW. E.LoweryDavid. 1989. Governmental fragmentation versus consolidation: Five public-choice myths about how to create informed, involved, and happy citizens. Public Administration Review49:533–43.
43.
MehayStephen L. (1981). The expenditure effects of municipal annexation. Public Choice36:53–62.
44.
MehtaShekharGiertzFred. 1996. Measuring the performance of the property tax assessment process. National Tax Journal49:73–85.
MooreAdrianNolanJamesSegalGeoffrey F.. 2005. Putting out the trash measuring municipal service efficiency in US cities. Urban Affairs Review41:237–59.
47.
National Association of Assessing Officers. 1937. Assessment principles and terminology. Chicago, IL: National Association of Assessing Officers.
48.
National Association of Assessing Officers. 1941. Assessment organization and personnel. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
49.
OatesWallace E.1972. Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
50.
OatesWallace E.1997. On the welfare gains from fiscal decentralization. Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice2–3:83–92.
51.
OrfieldMyron. 1998. Conflict or consensus? Forty years of Minnesota metropolitan politics. The Brookings Review16:31–34.
52.
OstromElinor. 1972. Metropolitan reform: Propositions derived from two traditions. Social Science Quarterly53:474–93.
53.
OstromElinorParksRoger B.WhitakerGordon P.. 1973. Do we really want to consolidate urban police forces? A reappraisal of some old assertions. Public Administration Review33:423–32.
54.
OstromVincentTieboutCharles M.WarrenRobert. 1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review55:831–42.
55.
ParksRoger B.OakersonRonald J.. 1993. Comparative metropolitan organization: Service production and governance structures in St. Louis (MO) and Allegheny County (PA). Publius: The Journal of Federalism23:19–40.
56.
PropheterGeoffrey. 2016. Managerial experience and organizational performance: A 15-year panel study of local assessors. Public Administration Review76:438–46.
57.
RossJustin M.2013. A socioeconomic analysis of property assessment uniformity: Empirical evidence on the role of policy. Public Budgeting and Finance33:49–75.
TieboutCharles M.1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy64:416–24.
62.
TieboutCharles M.1960. Economies of scale and metropolitan governments. The Review of Economics and Statistics42:442–44.
63.
WagnerRichard E.WeberWarren E.. 1975. Competition, monopoly, and the organization of government in metropolitan areas. Journal of Law and Economics18:661–84.
64.
ZimmerTimothyDeBoerLarryHirthMarilyn. 2009. Examining economies of scale in school consolidation: Assessment of Indiana school districts. Journal of Education Finance35:103–27.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
