Reasonableness, satisfaction, and willingness to pay property taxes

Urban Affairs Review

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 831-854

  Simonsen, Bill ^a   Robbins, Mark D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Budgeting; Citizen preferences; Citizen surveys; Deliberative citizen involvement; Property taxes; Public finance; Resource allocation; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

PUBLIC ATTITUDE; TAX SYSTEM; URBAN ECONOMY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0042244304     PISSN: 10780874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1078087403038006004     Document Type: Article

References (21)

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 Review 42:168-71.
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 Quarterly 68:223-43.
3. Beck, P. A., H. Rainey, and C. Traut. 1990. Disadvantage, disaffection, and race as divergent bases for citizen fiscal policy preferences. Journal of Politics 52 (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 Journal 32 (2, Suppl.): 113-30.
6. Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. 2001. Town profiles. Hartford: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development.
7. Electric restructuring news and comments. 2001. Retrieved 14 Mach 2002 at http://www.pullman.com/site/pubs/energy_fall01.htm
8. 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 Review 23 (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 Management 10 (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. 1/2. National Tax Journal 35 (2): 121-48.
13. Miller, T. I., and M. A. Miller. 1991. Standards of excellence. Public Administration Review 51:503-14.
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 Journal 37 (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 Quarterly 49:310-16.
21. Winter, S., and P. E. Mouritzen. 1997. Why people want something for nothing: The role of asymmetrical illusions. Unpublished manuscript.