IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v46y1985i2p197-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tax shares and government spending in a median voter model

Author

Listed:
  • Randall Holcombe
  • Steven Caudill

Abstract

When tax shares can be included in political platforms, there will be a bias toward more government spending. This bias is the result of the fact that demand curves slope downward. Political parties can compete for votes by offering pivotal voters lower tax shares, but when they do, a lower price per unit of government will cause the quantity demanded to rise. This yields an advantage to platforms promising more government. This concept was examined within the framework of a median voter model, and Figure 1 summarizes graphically the main conclusions of the model. In an initial situation, two parties are competing in an election. D m is the demand curve of the median voter, tax shares are fixed at t for all voters, and the parties propose Q L and Q H such that the median voter is indifferent between Q L and Q H . In the Downsian model, the party platforms converge on Q M , most preferred by the median voter, and Q M is the result of a majority rule election. If the parties are constrained to keep their platforms at Q L and Q H (for ideological reasons, perhaps), but can compete for voters by adjusting tax shares of individual voters, it was shown that the party offering Q H can always win the election. Thus, there is a bias toward larger government, induced by the downward sloping demand curves of voters. An attempt to win the vote of D m , for example, moves the median voter's most preferred level of government away from Q L , toward Q H . From the initial restriction that the median voter is indifferent between Q L and Q H at tax price t, it is apparent that a lower Q L offered by one party will enable the other party to increase Q H . This bias toward large government suggests why it is difficult even for politicians who favor smaller government to put together a viable political platforms that will actually reduce government size. The model was then extended to allow parties to adjust the quantities of government in their platforms, subject to the restriction that Q L ≤ Q H . In this case, the party platforms converge on Q*, where the marginal value of government spending to the median voter is zero. This is, admittedly, an extreme case, since the majority party does not have an unlimited ability to manipulate tax shares. However, it illustrates once again the bias toward larger government, and shows that Downsian competition leads to a determinate equilibrium level of government spending in excess of Q M that would be produced when tax shares cannot be manipulated. In summary, when tax shares can be included in political platforms politicians will attempt to win votes by lowering the tax shares of pivotal voters. These lower tax shares cause the quantity of government demanded to increase, and politicians will respond by offering more government. Thus, if tax shares can be included in political platforms, there is a bias toward larger government. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1985

Suggested Citation

  • Randall Holcombe & Steven Caudill, 1985. "Tax shares and government spending in a median voter model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 197-205, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:46:y:1985:i:2:p:197-205
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00179740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00179740
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00179740?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. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Goodman, Robert P, 1973. "Private Demands for Public Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 280-296, June.
    2. Borcherding, Thomas E & Deacon, Robert T, 1972. "The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 891-901, December.
    3. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1978. "Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 27-43, December.
    4. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    5. Howard R. Bowen, 1943. "The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 58(1), pages 27-48.
    6. Holcombe, Randall G, 1980. "An Empirical Test of the Median Voter Model," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(2), pages 260-274, April.
    7. Barlow, Robin, 1970. "Efficiency Aspects of Local School Finance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(5), pages 1028-1040, Sept.-Oct.
    8. McKelvey, Richard D., 1976. "Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 472-482, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John E. Filer & Donald L. Moak & Barry Uze, 1988. "Why Some States Adopt Lotteries and others Don'T," Public Finance Review, , vol. 16(3), pages 259-283, July.
    2. Kollias, Christos & Papadamou, Stephanos & Psarianos, Iacovos, 2014. "Fiscal imbalances and asymmetric adjustment under Labour and Conservative governments in the UK," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 208-213.
    3. Edward J. Mathis & Charles E. Zech, 1989. "The Median Voter Model Fails an Empirical Test: The Procedure, Useful in the Absence of a Better One, Is Not Valid for Multidimensional Issues," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 79-87, January.
    4. John Bradbury & W. Crain, 2005. "Legislative district configurations and fiscal policy in American States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 385-407, December.

    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. Randall Holcombe, 1989. "The median voter model in public choice theory," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 115-125, May.
    2. Randall G. Holcombe, 2023. "The transformative impact of rent-seeking theory on the study of public choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 157-167, July.
    3. Rhee, Se-Koo, 1996. "The impact of intergovernmental grants-in-aid on public school expenditure under the segregated school system," ISU General Staff Papers 1996010108000012396, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Eric J. Brunner & Stephen L. Ross, 2009. "Is the Median Voter Decisive? Evidence of 'Ends Against the Middle' From Referenda Voting Patterns," Working papers 2009-02, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised May 2010.
    5. John Akin & Michael Lea, 1982. "Microdata estimation of school expenditure levels: An alternative to the median voter approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 113-128, January.
    6. Fabio Padovano, 2013. "Are we witnessing a paradigm shift in the analysis of political competition?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 631-651, September.
    7. Robert Inman, 1978. "Testing political economy’s ‘as if’ proposition: is the median income voter really decisive?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 45-65, December.
    8. Randall Holcombe & Lawrence Kenny, 2007. "Evidence on voter preferences from unrestricted choice referendums," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 197-215, April.
    9. Eric J. Brunner & Stephen L. Ross, 2007. "How Decisive Is the Decisive Voter?," Working papers 2007-28, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2008.
    10. Randall Holcombe, 2005. "Government growth in the twenty-first century," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 95-114, July.
    11. John Jackson, 2014. "Location, location, location: the Davis-Hinich model of electoral competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 197-218, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Stanley L. Winer & Walter Hettich, 2002. "The Political Economy of Taxation: Positive and Normative Analysis when Collective Choice Matters," Carleton Economic Papers 02-11, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised 2004.
    14. James Alm & Abel Embaye, 2010. "Explaining The Growth Of Government Spending In South Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 78(2), pages 152-169, June.
    15. Leonard Dudley & Claude Montmarquette, 1981. "The demand for military expenditures: An international comparison," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 5-31, January.
    16. Jane Leuthold, 1988. "A forecasting model for state expenditures," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 45-55, January.
    17. Magnus Henrekson & Johan Lybeck, 1988. "Explaining the growth of government in Sweden: A disequilibrium approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 213-232, June.
    18. John Bradbury & W. Crain, 2005. "Legislative district configurations and fiscal policy in American States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 385-407, December.
    19. U-Jin Jhun & Jang H. Yoo, 1978. "The Public Good Demand Function: Tax Share as a Dependent Variable," Public Finance Review, , vol. 6(3), pages 277-286, July.
    20. Brady P. Horn & Michael Cantor & Rodney Fort, 2015. "Proximity And Voting For Professional Sporting Stadiums: The Pattern Of Support For The Seahawk Stadium Referendum," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(4), pages 678-688, October.

    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:46:y:1985:i:2:p:197-205. 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.