The demand for public school quality is estimated. Unlike previous studies, the price of a unit of public school quality in the demand estimation is measured by both the tax price and the implicit price calculated from a house price hedonic. Identification, endogeneity, and Tiebout bias are addressed. The tax price elasticity of the demand for public schooling is -.17; the implicit price elasticity of demand is -.11. Both estimates are more inelastic than previously reported elasticities. The income elasticity of demand is .32. The positive relationship between constant-quality house price and public school quality is confirmed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACCRA. 1991. Cost of living index24:1.7-1.8.
2.
ACCRA. 1992. Cost of living index25:1.7.
3.
Amerestate. 1991. PaceNet data set. Cincinnati, OH: Amerestate.
4.
Archer, W. R., D. H. Gatzlaff, and D. C. Ling. 1996. Measuring the importance of location in house price appreciation. Journal of Urban Economics40:334-353.
5.
Bergstrom, T. C., and R. P. Goodman. 1973. Private demands for public goods. American Economic Review63:280-296.
6.
Bergstrom, T. C., D. L. Rubinfeld, and P. Shapiro. 1982. Micro-based estimates of demand functions for local school expenditures. Econometrica50:1183-1205.
7.
Bradbury, K. L., C. J. Mayer, and K. E. Case. 2001. School quality, local budgets, and property values: A re-examination of capitalization. Journal of Public Economics80:287-311.
8.
Brasington, D. M.1999. Which measures of school quality does the housing market value?Journal of Real Estate Research18:395-413.
9.
Brasington, D. M.2000. Demand and supply of public school quality in metropolitan areas: The role of private schools. Journal of Regional Science40:583-605.
10.
Brasington, D. M.2001. The supply of public school quality. Working paper, Tulane University, New Or leans, LA.
11.
Brown, J. N., and H. S. Rosen. 1982. On the estimation of structural hedonic price models. Econometrica50:765-768.
12.
Crane, R.1990. Price specification and the demand for public goods. Journal of Public Economics43:93-106.
13.
Davidson, R., and J. G. MacKinnon. 1981. Several tests for model specification in the presence of multiple alternatives. Econometrica49:781-793.
14.
Downes, T. A., and T. F. Pogue. 1994. Adjusting school aid formulas for the higher cost of educating disadvantaged students. National Tax Journal47:89-110.
15.
Edel, M., and E. Sclar. 1974. Taxes, spending, and property values: Supply adjustment in a Tiebout-Oates model. Journal of Political Economy82:941-954.
16.
Goldstein, G. S., and M. V. Pauly. 1981. Tiebout bias on the demand for local public goods. Journal of Public Economics16:131-143.
17.
Goodman, A. C., and T. G. Thibodeau. 1998. Housing market segmentation. Journal of Housing Economics7:121-143.
18.
Grether, D. M., and P. Mieszkowski. 1974. Determinants of real estate values. Journal of Urban Economics1:127-146.
19.
Gustely, R. D.1976. Local taxes, expenditures, and urban housing: A reassessment of the evidence. Southern Economic Journal42:659-665.
20.
Hanushek, E. A.1997. Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis19:141-164.
21.
Hanushek, E. A., and L. L. Taylor. 1990. Alternative assessments of the performance of schools: Measurement of state variations in achievement. Journal of Human Resources25:179-201.
22.
Harrison, D., Jr., and D. L. Rubinfeld. 1978. Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management5:81-102.
23.
Haurin, D. R., and D. M. Brasington. 1996. The impact of school quality on real house prices: Interjurisdictional effects. Journal of Housing Economics5:351-368.
24.
Hayes, K. J., and L. L. Taylor. 1996. Neighborhood school characteristics: What signals quality to homebuyers?Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Review3:2-9.
25.
Hite, D. 1995. Welfare measurements for an environmental disamenity in the residential and real estate market. Ph.D. diss., The Ohio State University, Columbus.
26.
Hite, D., W. Chern, F. Hitzhusen, and A. Randall. 2001. Property value impacts of an environmental disamenity: The case of landfills. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics22:185-202.
27.
Jud, G. D.1985. A further note on schools and housing values. American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association Journal13:452-461.
28.
Jud, G. D., and J. M. Watts. 1981. Schools and housing values. Land Economics57:459-470.
29.
Kennedy, P.1992. A guide to econometrics. 3rd ed.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
Linneman, P.1980. Some empirical results on the nature of the hedonic price function for the urban housing market. Journal of Urban Economics8:47-68.
31.
Marquis, W. 1996. What schools contribute to education: A comparative study of catholic and public high school students using a value added approach. Ph.D. diss., The Ohio State University, Columbus.
32.
MESA Group. 1994. School district data book. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
33.
Nelson, C. R., and R. Startz. 1990. The distribution of the instrumental variables estimator and its t-ratio when the instrument is a poor one. Journal of Business63:S125-S140.
34.
Ohio Department of Education, Division of Information Management Services. 1999. EMIS profile data comparison. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/emis/emis_profile_data_comparison.asp
35.
Palmquist, R.1984. Estimating the demand for the characteristics of housing. Review of Economics and Statistics66:394-404.
36.
Quigley, J. M.1982. Nonlinear budget constraints and consumer demand: An application to public programs for residential housing. Journal of Urban Economics12:177-201.
37.
Reiter, M., and A. Weichenrieder. 1997. Are public goods public? A critical survey of the demand estimates for local public services. Finanzarchiv54:374-408.
38.
Rosen, H. S., and D. J. Fullerton. 1977. A note on local tax rates, public benefit levels, and property values. Journal of Political Economy85:433-440.
39.
Rosen, S.1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy82:34-55.
40.
Rubinfeld, D. L.1977. Voting in a local school election: A micro analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics59:30-42.
41.
Rubinfeld, D. L., P. Shapiro, and J. Roberts. 1987. Tiebout bias and the demand for local public schooling. Review of Economics and Statistics69:426-437.
42.
Savageau, D., and R. Boyer. 1993. Places rated almanac: Your guide to finding the best places to live in North America. New York: Prentice Hall Travel.
43.
Tiebout, C.1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64:416-424.
44.
Tinbergen, J.1956. On the theory of income distribution. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv77:155-173.
45.
Walden, M. L.1990. Magnet schools and the differential impact of school quality on residential property values. Journal of Real Estate Research5:221-230.
46.
Witte, A. D., H. J. Sumka, and H. Erekson. 1979. An estimate of a structural hedonic price model of the housing market: An application of Rosen’s theory of implicit markets. Econometrica47:1151-1173.
47.
Yinger, J., H. S. Bloom, A. Borsch-Supan, and H. F. Ladd. 1988. Property taxes and house values: The theory and estimation of intrajurisdictional property tax capitalization. New York: Academic Press.
