This article examines the effects of political parties, executive power, and efficiency on federal structure. It proposes and tests a model of federalism in which different levels of veto power can lead to varying degrees of centralization in the provision of central and local governmental services when executive and legislative branches have disparate preferences over which level should provide services. Results for the United States (1982-1992) find state and local spending centralizes with increased veto power because, absent offsetting political party advocacy for decentralization, central government spending interests dominate local government spending interests.
Abrams, Burton A., and William R. Dougan. 1986. The effects of constitutional restraints on governmental spending. Public Choice49 (2): 101-116.
2.
Alesina, Alberto, Reza Baqir, and William Easterly. 1999. Public goods and ethnic divisions.Quarterly Journal of Economics114 (4): 1243-1284.
3.
Alm, James, and Mark Evers. 1991. The item veto and state government expenditures. Public Choice68 (1-3): 1-15.
4.
Alm, James, Michael McKee, and Mark Skidmore. 1993. Fiscal pressure, tax competition, and the introduction of state lotteries. National Tax Journal46 (4): 463-476.
5.
Alm, James, and Mark Skidmore. 1999. Why do tax and expenditure limitations pass state elections?Public Finance Review47 (5): 481-510.
6.
Arrow, Kenneth J.1951. Social choice and individual values. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Baicker, Katherine. 1997. Government decision-making and the incidence of federal mandates. MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, Cambridge, MA.
8.
Baker, Samuel H.2000. Does enhanced veto power centralize spending?Public Choice104 (1-2): 63-79.
9.
Becker, Gary S.1983. A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics98 (3): 371-400.
10.
Becker, Gary S.1985. Public policies, pressure groups, and dead weight costs. Journal of Public Economics28 (3): 329-347.
11.
Benjamin, Gerald. 1982. The diffusion of the governor’s veto power. State Government55:99-105.
12.
Black, Duncan. 1958. The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Carter, John R., and David Schap. 1987. Executive veto, legislative override, and structure-induced equilibrium. Public Choice52 (3): 227-244.
14.
Carter, John R., and David Schap. 1990. Line-item veto: Where is thy sting?Journal of Economic Perspectives4:103-118.
15.
Cutler, David M., Douglas W. Elmendorf, and Richard J. Zeckhauser. 1993. Demographic characteristics and the public bundle. Public Finance/Finances Publiques48:178-198.
16.
Dearden, James A., and Thomas A. Husted. 1990. Executive budget proposals, executive veto, and uncertainty: A comparative analysis of the budgetary process. Public Choice65 (1): 1-19.
17.
Dearden, James A., and Thomas A. Husted. 1993. Do governors get what they want? An alternative examination of the line-item veto. Public Choice77 (6): 707-723.
18.
Hochman, Oded, David Pines, and Jacques-Francois Thisse. 1995. On the optimal structure of local governments. American Economic Review85 (5): 1224-1240.
19.
Holtz-Eakin, Douglas. 1988. The line item veto and public sector budgets: Evidence from the states. Journal of Public Economics36 (3): 269-292.
20.
Inman, Robert P., and Daniel P. Rubinfield. 1997. The political economy of federalism. In Perspectives on public choice, ed. Dennis C. Mueller, 73-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Luttmer, Erzo F. P. 1998. Group loyalty and the taste for redistribution. Harvard University Department of Economics Working Paper, Cambridge, MA.
22.
Nice, David C.1988. The item veto and expenditure restraint. Journal of Politics58 (May): 487-499.
23.
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Orr, Larry L.1976. Income transfers as a public good: An application to AFDC. American Economic Review66 (3): 359-371.
25.
Peltzman, Sam. 1976. Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics19 (2): 211-240.
26.
Poterba, James M.1994. State responses to fiscal crises: Natural experiments for studying the effects of budgetary institutions. Journal of Political Economy102 (2): 793-821.
27.
Poterba, James M.1996. Budget institutions and fiscal policy in the U.S. states. American Economic Review86 (3): 395-400.
28.
Poterba, James M.1997. Demographic structure and the political economy of public education. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management16 (1): 48-66.
29.
Rosen, Harvey S.2005. Public finance. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
30.
Rowley, Charles K., William F. Shughart II, and Robert D. Tollison. 1986. Interest groups and deficits. In Deficits, ed. James M. Buchanan, Charles K. Rowley, and Robert D. Tollison, 263-280. New York: Basil Blackwell.
31.
Stackelberg, Heinrich von. 1934. Marktform und Gleichgewicht. Berlin: J. Springer. Translated by Alan Peacock as The theory of the market economy(London: William Hodge, 1952).
32.
Stigler, George J.1971. The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management2 (1): 3-21.
33.
Wallis, John T., and Wallace E. Oates. 1988. Decentralization in the public sector: An empirical study of state and local government. In Fiscal federalism, ed. Harvey S. Rosen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
White, Halbert A.1980. A heteroskedastic-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica48 (May): 817-838.
