IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v63y1989i1p73-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monopoly power and monitoring: A test using the Gonzalez and Mehay model

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Giroux

Abstract

In summary, the audit opinion is a control technique that behaves as expected in a GM model. An unqualified opinion seems to be an effective device that is associated with reduced levels of public expenditures. Higher spending is associated with qualified opinions. One interpretation of this result is the use of strategic bureaucratic roadblocks to limit the effectiveness of the audit. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Suggested Citation

  • Gary Giroux, 1989. "Monopoly power and monitoring: A test using the Gonzalez and Mehay model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 73-78, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:63:y:1989:i:1:p:73-78
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00223273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00223273
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00223273?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rodolfo Gonzalez & Stephen Mehay, 1985. "Bureaucracy and the divisibility of local public output," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 89-101, January.
    2. Breton, Albert & Wintrobe, Ronald, 1975. "The Equilibrium Size of a Budget-maximizing Bureau: A Note on Niskanen's Theory of Bureaucracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(1), pages 195-207, February.
    3. Mark Toma & Eugenia Toma, 1980. "Bureaucratic responses to tax limitation amendments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 333-348, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen L. Mehay & Rodolfo A. Gonzalez, 1987. "Outside Information and the Monopoly Power of a Public Bureau: An Empirical Analysis," Public Finance Review, , vol. 15(1), pages 61-75, January.
    2. Benoît Le Maux, 2009. "Governmental behavior in representative democracy: a synthesis of the theoretical literature," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 447-465, December.
    3. Paul Wyckoff, 1988. "Bureaucracy and the ‘publicness’ of local public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 271-284, March.
    4. Roger Congleton, 2009. "On the political economy of the financial crisis and bailout of 2008–2009," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 287-317, September.
    5. Samarth Vaidya, 2004. "Bureaucratic Provision: Influencing vs. Lying," Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings 251, Econometric Society.
    6. Kevin T. Duffy-Deno & Douglas R. Dalenberg, 1993. "The Municipal Wage and Employment Effects of Public Infrastructure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 30(9), pages 1577-1589, November.
    7. Blaeschke, Frédéric & Haug, Peter, 2014. "Does Intermunicipal Cooperation Increase Efficiency? Evidence from the Hessian Wastewater Sector," IWH Discussion Papers 11/2014, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    8. Miltos Makris, 2003. "Administrative Bureaus with Standard Operating Procedures," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 03/062, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    9. Roger Congleton, 2007. "Informational limits to democratic public policy: The jury theorem, yardstick competition, and ignorance," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 333-352, September.
    10. Haug, Peter, 2013. "Grant Dependence, Regulation and the Effects of Formula-based Grant Systems on German Local Governments: A Data Report for Saxony-Anhalt," IWH Discussion Papers 2/2013, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    11. R. Congleton, 1982. "A model of asymmetric bureaucratic inertia and bias," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 421-425, January.
    12. David L. Sollars & Bruce L. Benson & David W. Rasmussen, 1994. "Drug Enforcement and the Deterrence of Property Crime Among Local Jurisdictions," Public Finance Review, , vol. 22(1), pages 22-45, January.
    13. Antonis Adam & Manthos Delis & Pantelis Kammas, 2011. "Public sector efficiency: leveling the playing field between OECD countries," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 163-183, January.
    14. Dieter Schmidtchen & Bernard Steunenberg, "undated". "European Policymaking: An Agency-Theoretic Analysis of the Issue," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2002-1-1040, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    15. Aleksandar Vasilev, 2013. "On the cost of rent-seeking by government bureaucrats in a Real-Business-Cycle framework," Working Papers 2013_20, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    16. Thomas McGuire & Michael Coiner & Larry Spancake, 1979. "Budget-maximizing agencies and efficiency in government," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 333-357, September.
    17. Swank Otto H., 2000. "Seeking information: the role of information providers in the policy decision process," Public Economics 0004004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Eugenia Toma & Mark Toma, 1985. "Research activities and budget allocations among Federal Reserve Banks," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 175-191, January.
    19. Sechindra Vallury & Bryan Leonard, 2022. "Canals, climate, and corruption: The provisioning of public infrastructure under uncertainty," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 221-252, March.
    20. Adeel Ahmad DAR & Taj MUHAMMAD & M. Wasif SIDDIQI, 2020. "Bureaucratic Quality and FDI Inflows Nexus: A South Asian Perspective," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(3), pages 149-168, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:63:y:1989:i:1:p:73-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.