This article examines the effects of state policy on net interstate migration. Using Ordinary Least Squares regression on aggregate cross-sectional data, state policy factors are found to be significant determinants of the net interstate migration levels of the states. In addition, two previously untested variables, state ideology and an investment-consumption ratio, are found to be significant. The analysis indicates that states with low taxation levels, high investment-consumption ratios, and more liberal ideologies relative to other states, tend to experience more population growth via interstate migration. The results suggest that a consumer-voter model explains a significant portion of the variation in aggregate migration behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Althaus, Paul G. and Joseph Schachter. 1983. “Interstate Migration and the New Federalism.”Social Science Quarterly64 (1): 35-45.
2.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Berry, William D., Evan J. Ringquist, Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93.”American Journal of Political Science42 (1): 327-348.
4.
Bingham, Richard D.1998. Industrial Policy American Style: From Hamilton to HDTV. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
5.
Cebula, Richard J., and Leslie K. Avery1983. “The Tiebout Hypothesis in the United States: An Analysis of Black Consumer-Voters.”Public Choice41: 307-310.
6.
Dunn, L. E.1979. “Measuring the Value of Community.”Journal of Urban Economics6 (3): 371-382.
7.
Dye, Thomas R.1980. “Taxing, Spending, and Economic Growth in the American States.”Journal of Politics42 (4): 1085-1107.
8.
Dye, Thomas R.1990. American Federalism: Competition Among Governments. Lexington, MA: Heath.
9.
Erikson, Robert S., Gerald C. Wright, and John P. McIver. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Gallup, George Jr. 1990. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1989. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Research Inc.
11.
Greene, William H.1997. Econometric Analysis, 3rd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
Hansen, Kristen A.1995. Geographic Mobility: March 1993-1994; Current Population Reports (P20-485). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
13.
Hirschman, Albert O.1970. Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Jones, Bryan D.1990. “Public Policies and Economic Growth in the American States.”Journal of Politics52 (1): 219-233.
15.
King, Gary. 1997. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
Long, Larry E.1988. Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
18.
Long, Larry H., and Kristen A. Hansen. 1979. Reasons for Interstate Migration. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19.
Lowery, David, and William E. Lyons. 1989. “The Impact of Jurisdictional Boundaries: An Individual-Level Test of the Tiebout Model.”Journal of Politics51 (1): 73-97.
20.
Maddala, G. S.1992. Introduction to Econometrics, 2 ed.New York: Macmillan.
21.
McHugh, Kevin E.1985. “Reasons for Migrating or Not.”Sociology and Social Research69 (4): 586-589.
22.
Orbell, John, and Toru Uno. 1972. “The Theory of Neighborhood Problem Solving: Political Action vs. Residential Mobility”American Political Science Review66 (2): 471-489.
23.
Ostrom, Vincent, Charles M. Tiebout, and Robert Warren. 1961. “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.”American Political Science Review55 (4): 831-842.
24.
Percy, Stephen L, and Brett W Hawkins. 1992. “Further Tests of Individual-Level Propositions From the Tiebout Model.”Journal of Politics54 (4): 1149-1157.
25.
Percy, Stephen L., Brett W Hawkins, and Peter E. Maier. 1995. “Revisiting Tiebout: Moving Rationales and Interjurisdictional Relocation.”Publius25 (4): 1-17.
26.
Peterson, Paul E.1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Peterson, Paul E., Barry G. Rabe, and Kenneth K. Wong. 1989. When Federalism Works. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
28.
Plaut, Thomas R. and Joseph E. Pluta. 1983. “Business Climate, Taxes and Expenditures, and State Industrial Growth in the United States.”Southern Economic Journal50 (1): 99-119.
29.
Sharpe, Elaine B.1984. “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty in the Context of Local Government Problems.”Western Political Quarterly37 (1): 67-83.
30.
Sommers, Paul M., and Daniel B. Suits. 1973. “Analysis of Net Interstate Migration.”Southern Economic Journal40 (2): 193-201.
31.
Speare, Alden, Frances Kobrin, and Ward Kingkade. 1982. “The Influence of Socioeconomic Bonds and Satisfaction on Interstate Migration.”Social Forces61 (2): 551-574.
32.
Spindler, Charles J., and John P Forrester. 1993. “Economic Development Policy: Explaining Policy Preferences among Competing Models.”Urban Affairs Quarterly. 29 (1): 28-53.
33.
Tiebout, Charles M.1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.”Journal of Political Economy64: 416-424.
34.
Wood, Floris W, ed. 1990. An American Profile-Opinions and Behavior, 1972-1989. Detroit: Gale Research Inc.
