This is an empirical exploration of tax competition among Florida local governments. We estimate a spatial lag reaction function for property tax rate of Florida municipal governments in 2000 and 2004. The level of ``neighborliness'' is measured as spatial distance between geographical centers of municipalities. The weight matrix excludes the municipalities locating within the same county to eliminate their common responses to higher-tier government property tax policy. By including the property tax rate levied by other local governments (counties, school districts), we find that tax competition exists for property tax among neighboring municipalities (horizontal) as well as between municipalities and other local governments (vertical). The response of municipal governments is negative to county's property tax rate but positive to school district's property tax rate.
---. 1988b. Lagrange Multiplier test diagnostics for spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity. Geographical Analysis20:1-17.
4.
---. 1992. SpaceStat: A program for the analysis of spatial data , Morgantown, WV: Regional Research Institute.
5.
Aronsson, Thomas, Johan Lundberg, and Magnus Wikstrom .2000. The impact of regional public expenditures on the local decision to spend. Regional Science and Urban Economics30:185-202.
6.
Besley, Timothy, and Anne C. Case .1995. Incumbent behavior: Vote seeking, tax setting, and yardstick competition. American Economic Review85:25-45.
7.
Besley, Timothy, and Harvey S. Rosen .1998. Vertical externalities in tax setting: Evidence from gasoline and cigarettes. Journal of Public Economics70:383-98.
8.
Bordignon, Massimo, Floriana Cerniglia, and Federico Revelli .2003. In search of yardstick competition: A spatial analysis of Italian municipality property tax setting. Journal of Urban Economics54:199-217.
9.
Brett, Craig, and Joris Pinkse.2000. The determinants of municipal tax rates inBritish Columbia. Canadian Journal of Economics33:695-714.
10.
Brueckner, Jan K.2003. Strategic interaction among governments: An overview of empirical studies. International Regional Science Review26:175-88.
11.
Brueckner, Jan K., and Luz A. Saavedra .2001. Do local governments engage in strategic property-tax competition? National Tax Journal54:203-29.
12.
Buettner, Thiess.2001. Local business taxation and competition for capital: The choice of the tax rate. Regional Science and Urban Economics31:215-45.
13.
Case, Anne C.1993. Interstate tax competition after TRA86. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management12:136-48.
14.
Clark, Terry N., and Lorna C. Ferguson .1983. City money: Political processes, fiscal strain and retrenchment. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
15.
Devereux, Michael, Ben Lockwood, and Michela Redoano .2007. Horizontal and vertical indirect tax competition: Theory and some evidence from the USA. Journal of Public Economics91:451-79.
16.
Esteller-Moré, Álex, and Albert Solé Ollé .2001. Vertical income tax externalities and fiscal interdependence: Evidence from the US. Regional Science and Urban Economics31:247-72.
17.
Feld, Lars P., and Gebhard Kirchgassner .2001. Income tax competition at the state and local level in Switzerland. Regional Science and Urban Economics31:181-213.
18.
Feld, Lars P., Jean-Michel Josselin, and Yvon Rocaboy.2003. Tax mimicking among regional jurisdictions. In From economic to legal competition: New perspectives on law and institutions in Europe, ed. Alain Marciano and Jean-Michel Josselin, 105-19. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Elgar.
19.
Goodspeed, Timothy J.2000. Tax structure in a federation. Journal of Public Economics75:493-506.
20.
Goodspeed, Timothy J.2002. Tax competition and tax structure in open federal economies: Evidence from OECD countries with implications for the European Union. European Economic Review46:357-74.
21.
Hayashi, Masayoshi, and Robin Boadway.2001. An empirical analysis of intergovernmental tax interaction: The case of business income taxes in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics34:481-503.
22.
Hendrick, Rebecca, Yonghong Wu, and Benoy Jacob.2007. Tax competition among municipal governments: Exit versus voice. Urban Affairs Review43:221-55.
23.
Hernandez-Murillo, Ruben.2003. Strategic interaction in tax policies among states . Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review85:47-56.
24.
Hettich, Walter, and Stanley L. Winer .1999. Democratic choice and taxation: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Heyndels, Bruno, and Jef Vuchelen .1998. Tax mimicking among Belgian municipalities. National Tax Journal51:89-101.
26.
Inman, Robert.1987. Market, government and the ``New'' political economy . In Handbook of public economics, vol. 2, ed. Alan J. Auerbach and Martin. S. Feldstein , 647-777. Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier .
27.
Karkalakos, Sotiris, and Christos Kotsogiannis .2007. A spatial analysis of provincial corporate income tax responses: evidence from Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics40:782-811.
28.
Keen, Michael.1998. Vertical tax externalities in the theory of fiscal federalism . IMF Staff Papers45:454-85.
29.
Ladd, Helen F.1992. Mimicking of local tax burdens among neighboring counties . Public Finance Quarterly20:450-67.
30.
Revelli, Federico.2001. Spatial patterns in local taxation: Tax mimicking or error mimicking? Applied Economics33:1101-7.
31.
---. 2003. Reaction or interaction? Spatial process identification in multi-tiered government structures. Journal of Urban Economics53:29-53.
32.
---. 2005. On spatial public finance empirics. International Tax and Public Finance12:475-92.
33.
Rork, Jonathan C.2003. Coveting thy neighbors' taxation. National Tax Journal56:775-87.
34.
Solé Ollé, Albert.2003. Electoral accountability and tax mimicking: The effects of electoral margins, coalition government, and ideology. European Journal of Political Economy19:685-713.
35.
US Census Bureau.2002. 2002 Census of governments volume 1, number 1, government organization. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.
