Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions
AbstractFiscal equivalence for efficient provision of a public good requires perfect correspondence between political and economic jurisdictions. However, the spatial extent of the economic jurisdiction is an empirical question. Drawing on four survey-based valuation studies, we measure the "relative public good benefit gradient" as a function of residential location from six natural resource public goods. The results indicate commonly used state political jurisdictions reflect an average of 13% of total benefits in the economic jurisdiction, although with a logarithmic form for distance the upper confidence interval of state benefits can include 100% for some species.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.
Volume (Year): 76 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
- D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Shalini P. Vajjhala & Anna Mische John & David A. Evans, 2008.
"Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods,"
NCEE Working Paper Series
200809, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Oct 2008.
- Vajjhala, Shalini P. & Mische John, Anna & Evans, David A., 2008. "Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods," Discussion Papers dp-08-14, Resources For the Future.
- Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
- Luke Brander & Andrea Ghermandi & Onno Kuik & Anil Markandya & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Marije Schaafsma & Alfred Wagtendonk, 2010. "Scaling up Ecosystem Services Values: Methodology, Applicability and a Case Study," Working Papers 2010.41, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2003. "Valuing cultural heritage in a multi-attribute framework microeconomic perspectives and policy implications," The Journal of Socio-Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 549-569, November.
- Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
- Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
- Zafonte, Matthew & Hampton, Steve, 2007. "Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 134-145, February.
- John Cullinan, 2011. "A Spatial Microsimulation Approach to Estimating the Total Number and Economic Value of Site Visits in Travel Cost Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 27-47, September.
- Deacon, Robert T & SchlÃ¤pfer, Felix, 2007. "The spatial range of public goods revealed through referendum voting," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt1pf1369j, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Ando, Amy W. & Shah, Payal, 2010.
"Demand-side factors in optimal land conservation choice,"
Resource and Energy Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 203-221, April.
- Ando, Amy Whritenour & Shah, Payal, 2009. "Demand-Side Factors in Optimal Land Conservation Choice," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49209, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
- Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
- De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
- John Cullinan & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2008. "Aggregating Consumer Surplus Values in Travel Cost Modelling Using Spatial Microsimulation and GIS Techniques," Working Papers 0807, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
- Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
- Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Ladenburg, Jacob & Martinsen, Louise & Svenningsen, Stig Roar & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 58-66.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.