The authors explore whether citizen preferences for taxes are influenced by perceptions of the quality of government and government services. Waterford, Connecticut, was faced with a revenue crisis when the property taxes paid by a nuclear power facility in the town were significantly reduced after deregulation. On the basis of a survey of town residents, the authors find that citizens in Waterford were willing to act reasonably in response to fiscal problems. Furthermore, attitudes toward government and its services are important determinants of support for taxes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arrington, T. S., and D. D. Jordan. 1982. Willingness to pay per capita costs as a measure of support for urban services. Public Administration Review42:168-171.
2.
Beck, P. A., H. Rainey, K. Nichols, and C. Traut. 1987. Citizen views of taxes and services: A tale of three cities. Social Science Quarterly68:223-243.
3.
Beck, P. A., H. Rainey, and C. Traut. 1990. Disadvantage, disaffection, and race as divergent bases for citizen fiscal policy preferences. Journal of Politics52 (1): 71-93.
4.
Center for Survey Research and Analysis, University of Connecticut. 2000. A survey of Waterford residents on taxes, town services, and dealing with the loss of revenue from Millstone. Storrs, CT: Center for Survey Research and Analysis.
5.
Citrin, J. 1979. Do people want something for nothing? National Tax Journal32 (2, Suppl.): 113-130.
6.
Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. 2001. Town profiles. Hartford: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development.
Glaser, M. A., and W. B. Hildreth. 1999. Service delivery satisfaction and willingness to pay taxes: Citizen recognition of local government performance. Public Productivity and Management Review23 (1): 48-67.
9.
Jefferson Center. 1993. America's Tough Choices Citizens Jury: Report on federal budget panel with appendices. Minneapolis, MN: The Jefferson Center.
10.
Kathlene, L., and J. A. Martin. 1991. Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management10 (1): 45-63.
11.
Kay, A., F. T. Steeper, H. Henderson, C. Lake, and D. J. Hansen. 1992. What the American people want in the federal budget. Washington, DC: Americans Talk Issues Foundation.
12.
Ladd, H. F., and J. B. Wilson. 1982. Why voters support tax limitations: Evidence from Massachusetts Proposition 2½. National Tax Journal35 (2): 121-148.
13.
Miller, T. I., and M. A. Miller. 1991. Standards of excellence. Public Administration Review51:503-514.
14.
Simonsen, W., and M. D. Robbins. 2000a. Citizen participation in resource allocation. Boulder, CO: Westview.
15.
Simonsen, W., and M. D. Robbins. 2000b. The influence of fiscal information on preferences for city services. Social Science Journal37 (2): 195-214.
16.
State of Connecticut. 2001. State of Connecticut municipal indicators 1996-2000. Hartford: State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management.
17.
State of Connecticut. 2002. Town profiles—Waterford. Hartford: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development.
18.
Town of Waterford. 2000. Financial management plan for the representative town meeting long range fiscal planning committee, town of Waterford, Connecticut. Retrieved 14 March 2002 at http://waterfordschools.org/planning/3%20Exec%20summ1.html
19.
Udziela, M. K., and L. L. Bennett. 1997. Contingent valuation of an urban salt marsh restoration. In Restoration of an urban salt marsh: An interdisciplinary approach, edited by D. G. Casagrande, 41-61. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
20.
Welch, S. 1985. The “more for less” paradox: Public attitudes on taxing and spending. Public Opinion Quarterly49:310-316.
21.
Winter, S., and P. E. Mouritzen. 1997. Why people want something for nothing: The role of asymmetrical illusions. Unpublished manuscript.
