Bargaining in the shadow of the ballot box: Causes and consequences of local voter initiatives

Public Choice

Volumn 141, Issue 1-2, 2009, Pages 31-48

  Gordon, Tracy M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

California; Direct democracy; Initiative; Local public finance

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349237553     PISSN: 00485829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11127-009-9434-y     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Baron, D. (1994). Electoral competition with informed and uninformed voters. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 33-47.
2. Banducci, S. A., (1998). Direct legislation: when is it used and when does it pass? In S. Bowler, T. Donovan, & C.J. Tolder (Eds.), Citizens as legislators: direct democracy in the United States (pp. 109-131). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
3. Besley, T., & Case, A. C. (2003). Political institutions and policy choices: evidence from the United States. Journal of Economic Literature 7-73.
4. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (2008). Issue unbundling via citizens' initiatives. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3, 1-19.
5. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1980). The power to tax: analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Buchanan, J. (1965). An economic theory of clubs. Economica, 33, 1-14.
7. Cain, B., Citrin, J., & Wong, C. (2000). Ethnic context, race relations, and California politics. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
8. Chicoine, D. L., Walzer, N., & Deller, S. C. (1989). Representative vs. direct democracy and government spending in a median voter model. Public Finance/Finances Publiques, XXXXIV(2), 225-236.
9. Cooter, R. D. (2002). Constitutional consequentialism: bargain democracy versus median democracy. Theoretical Inquiries in Law (Online Edition) 3(1).
10. Denzau, A., Mackay, R., & Weaver, C. (1979). Spending limitations, agenda control, and voters' expectations. National Tax Journal, 32, 189-200 (Suppl.).
11. Epple, D., & Zelenitz, A. (1981). The implications of competition among jurisdictions: does Tiebout need politics? Journal of Political Economy, 89(6), 1197-1217.
12. Farnham, P. G. (1990). The impact of citizen influence on local government expenditure. Public Choice, 64, 201-212.
13. Fischel, W. A. (2001). The homevoter hypothesis: how home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14. Fischel, W. A. (1985). The economics of zoning laws: a property rights approach to American land use controls. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Gerber, E. R. (1996). Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 99-128.
16. Gerber, E. R. (1999). The populist paradox: interest group influence and the promise of direct legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
17. Gerber, E. R., & Philips, J. H. (2004). Direct democracy and land use policy: exchanging public goods for development rights. Urban Studies, 41(2), 463-479.
18. Gordon, T. M. (2004). The local initiative in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
19. Hajnal, Z. L., Lewis, P. G., & Louch, H. (2002). Municipal elections in California: turnout, timing, and competition. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
20. Henderson, V. (1985). The Tiebout model: bring back the entrepreneurs. Journal of Political Economy, 98(21), 248-264.
21. Hoyt, W. H. (1999). Leviathan, local government expenditures, and capitalization. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 29, 155-171.
22. Legislative Analyst's Office. (1996). Understanding Proposition 218. Sacramento: Legislative Analyst's Office, December 1996.
23. Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative: evidence from the last 30 years. Journal of Political Economy, 103(3), 587-623.
24. Matsusaka, J. G. (2000). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative in the first half of the 20th century. Journal of Law and Economics, 43, 619-648.
25. Matsusaka, J. G. (2003). The initiative and referendum in American cities: basic patterns. In M. Dane Waters (Ed.), The initiative and referendum almanac: a comprehensive reference guide to citizen lawmaking around the world. Washington, DC: Initiative and Referendum Institute.
26. Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). For the many or the few: how the initiative process changes American government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Matsusaka, J. G., & McCarty, N. M. (2001). Political resource allocation: benefits and costs of voter initiatives. Journal of Law and Economics, 17(2), 413-448.
28. Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 309-332.
29. Nelson, R. (1977). Zoning and property rights: an analysis of the American system of land use regulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
30. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
31. Oliver, J. E. (2001). Democracy in suburbia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32. Primo, D. (2007). The effect of initiatives on local government spending. Discussion paper.
33. Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1979). The elusive median voter. Journal of Public Economics, 12, 143-170.
34. Santerre, R. E. (1989). Representative versus direct democracy: are there any expenditure differences? Public Choice, 60, 145-154.
35. Sass, T. R. (1991). The choice of municipal government structure and public expenditures. Public Choice, 71, 71-87.
36. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3-21.
37. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local public expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
38. Weingast, B. R., Shepsle, K. A., & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: a neocolassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 642-664.
39. Zax, J. S. (1989). Initiatives and government expenditure. Public Choice, 63, 267-277.