IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v32y1995i6p935-951.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Housing Density: A Neglected Dimension of Fiscal Impact Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel P. Dekel

    (Survey Research Unit, Department of Political Science and Public Policy, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand. Email:dekel@waikato.ac.nz)

Abstract

Conventional fiscal impact analysis has failed to address adequately the spatial dimensions of development alternatives, notably the costs associated with housing density. This paper proposes a method that can correct this methodological shortcoming as well as determine, in budgetary terms, the optimal levels of housing density for various neighbourhoods. These optimal densities reflect the balance between the costs of land-related municipal services and the total property tax revenues in each neighbourhood. The enforcement of such optimal densities can help to eliminate the gap between taxation levels, which can recover land-related service costs, and the actual tax revenues in each neighbourhood. By linking planning to the budgetary process, planners can play a leading role in local decision-making. Local governments, for their part, can better comply with the need for budget restraint.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel P. Dekel, 1995. "Housing Density: A Neglected Dimension of Fiscal Impact Analysis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 32(6), pages 935-951, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:32:y:1995:i:6:p:935-951
    DOI: 10.1080/00420989550012726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/00420989550012726
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00420989550012726?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bodkin, Ronald G & Conklin, David W, 1971. "Scale and Other Determinants of Municipal Government Expenditures in Ontario: A Quantitative Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 12(3), pages 465-481, October.
    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. Germa Bel & Anton Costas, 2006. "Do Public Sector Reforms Get Rusty? Local Privatization in Spain," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 1-24.
    2. Hirota, Haruaki & Yunoue, Hideo, 2011. "Municipal mergers and special provisions of local council members in Japan," MPRA Paper 37485, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Alexander Eck & Carolin Fritzsche & Jan Kluge & Joachim Ragnitz & Felix Rösel, 2015. "Fiscal Capacity and Determining Structural Characteristics of the Eastern German Laender," ifo Dresden Studien, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 76.
    4. Juan Luis Gómez-Reino & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2021. "Evidence on economies of scale in local public service provision: a meta-analysis," Working Papers. Collection A: Public economics, governance and decentralization 2103, Universidade de Vigo, GEN - Governance and Economics research Network.
    5. Reingewertz, Yaniv, 2014. "Fiscal Decentralization - a Survey of the Empirical Literature," MPRA Paper 59889, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Werner W. Pommerehne & Charles Beat Blankart, 1979. "Les économies d'échelles dans les services urbains," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 30(2), pages 338-354.
    7. Stefán B. Gunnlaugsson, 2017. "Credit Risk Of Icelandic Municipalities," Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 2(2), pages 7-15, September.
    8. Bernardino Benito & María-Dolores Guillamón & Ana-María Ríos, 2017. "The electoral budget cycle on municipal waste collection expenditure," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(41), pages 4161-4179, September.
    9. Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2013. "Fiscal Decentralization in Peru: A Perspective on Recent Developments and Future Challenges," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1324, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    10. Blankart, Charles B., 1977. "Zunehmende Skalenerträge in der Nutzung als wohlfahrtsökonomisches Problem," Discussion Papers, Series I 98, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.
    11. Harry M. Kitchen, 1976. "A Statistical Estimation of an Operating Cost Function for Municipal Refuse Collection," Public Finance Review, , vol. 4(1), pages 56-76, January.
    12. Katsuyoshi Nakazawa & Tomohisa Miyashita, 2013. "Municipality amalgamation in Japan: A survival analysis of the timings of the amalgamation process," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201338, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    13. Mototsugu Fukushige & Yingxin Shi, 2015. "Efficient scale of prefectural government in China," China Finance and Economic Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Germa Bel & Anton Costas, 2004. "Do public sector reforms get rusty? An empirical analysis on privatization of solid waste collection," Public Economics 0409014, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Soukopová Jana & Nemec Juraj & Matějová Lenka & Struk Michal, 2014. "Municipality Size and Local Public Services: Do Economies of Scale Exist ?," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 7(2), pages 151-171, December.
    16. Mototsugu Fukushige & Yingxin Shi, 2014. "Efficient Scale of Local Government in China: Quantile Regression Approach to County-Level Data," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 14-15, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.

    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:sae:urbstu:v:32:y:1995:i:6:p:935-951. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    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.