Using a micro data base of almost 1300 households, this article examines the relationship between fiscal preference (for local and provincial goods) and respondent characteristics. Since individuals were asked if expenditure on a particular functional area was sufficient, a binary dependent variable model was
used to test a variety of hypotheses regarding fiscal preferences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banfield, E.C. and J.Q. Wilson (1965) "Voting behavior and municipal expenditure." Public Economy of Urban Areas, Washington.
2.
Barr, J. and O. Davis (1966) "An elementary political and economic theory of local governments." Southern Economic J. (Oct.).
3.
Borcherding, T. and R. Deacon (1972) "The demand for services of nonfederal governments ." Amer. Economic Rev. (Dec.).
4.
Bowen, H. (1943) "The interpretation of voting in the allocation of economic resources." Q. J. of Econ.
5.
Buse, A. (1973) A Technical Report on Binary Dependent Variables as Applied to the Social Sciences. Edmonton, Canada: Human Resources Research Council.
6.
Curtin, R. and C. Cowan (1973) "Public attitudes towards fiscal programs." In Survey of Consumers. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan .
7.
Deacon, R. and P. Shapi Ro (1975) "Private preferences for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda." Amer. Economic Rev. (Dec.).
8.
Hori, H. (1975) "Revealed preference for public goods." Amer. Economic Rev. (Dec.).
9.
Kurz, M. (1974) "Experimental approach to the determination ofthe demand for public goods." J. of Public Econ.2.
10.
Mueller, E. (1963) "Public attitudes towards fiscal programs." Q. J. of Econ. (May).
11.
Rubinfeld, D. (1977) "Voting in a local school election: a micro analysis ." Rev. of Econ. and Stat. (Feb.): 30-42.
12.
Vogel, J. (1974) "Taxation and public opinion in Sweden." Natl. Tax J. (Dec.).
