This paper aims at questioning the link between local finances and the economic dynamism of cities. This issue is based on the frequently stressed cases (by the media) of uncontrolled expenses of cities, increased level of local taxes and negative effects on local economics. Therefore, as a starting point, the lack of neutral link between urban management and local attractive power of cities will be assumed. The relevance of the following assumption will be considered : the choice of the financial way to manage a city would positively influence economic dynamism, provided it would express the agreement with a “budgetary orthodoxy convention”. Conversely, local public management, insofar as it is based (notably) on debts and refers to what could be called “keynesian convention” would negatively influence the attractive power of cities. Thus, everything else equal, the more a city would be granted with important saving resources, the more it could afford to finance it own investments (or increased investments with a given rate of self-financing), the less financial expenses would lessen the functioning resources of the following year, etc … Moreover, a healthy financial management would improve the probability of a city to attract households and firms : if debts and local taxes can be restricted to a law level (in respect to the national average level, to the one of close competing cities …), then this law yearly increase of local taxes would not seem to shackle the dynamics of locations within a given city. The empirical part of this paper deals with the test of the relevance of the previous assumptions. Our sample is composed with all the 324 cities of the French Department of Tarn. The attractive power of Tarn cities will be estimated by the increase (or decrease) of population. The assumptions will be tested thanks to ordinary least square regressions, and factor analysis. The database includes budgetary variables (budgets of cities, resources, expenses, savings, fiscal wealth, debts, investments, …), fiscal variables (local taxes, income tax, …) and also distances from each city to Toulouse, expressed in kilometres and in time. The conclusions will be detailed in terms of local planning, by comparing the impact of distance to fiscal “fixed” expenses.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Groupement de Recherches Economiques et Sociales in its series Cahiers du GRES with number
2004-12.
Find related papers by JEL classification: R12 - Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity; Interregional Trade (economic geography) R15 - Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Econometric and Input-Output Models; Other Methods R51 - Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Finance in Urban and Rural Economies H74 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Borrowing
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: