The Capitalization of Education Finance Reforms
The education finance reforms encouraged by state court rulings over the past 25 years have led to increased state aid and educational spending in poorer school districts. This empirical study addresses whether these new resources were capitalized into the housing values and residential rents within those districts. Estimations based on district-level census data indicate that the new educational expenditures generated by the court mandates substantially increased median housing values and residential rents. This Tiebout response implies that court-mandated finance reforms increased the perceived quality of the poorer school districts in reform states. However, the existence and magnitude of this response also implies that these reforms had unintended distributional consequences. For example, these results indicate that for some the redistributive impact of education finance reform may have been sharply attenuated by the increased cost of residing in the districts that received new educational resources. Copyright 2000 by the University of Chicago.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sandra E. Black, 1999.
"Do Better Schools Matter? Parental Valuation of Elementary Education,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 577-599.
- Sandra E. Black, 1997. "Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education," Research Paper 9729, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- William N. Evans & Sheila E. Murray & Robert M. Schwab, 1997. "Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses after Serrano," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 10-31.
- Bogart, William T. & Cromwell, Brian A., 1997. "How Much More is a Good School District Worth?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 50(2), pages 215-32, June.
- Bogart, William T. & Cromwell, Brian A., 1997. "How Much More Is a Good School District Worth?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 50(2), pages 215-232, June.
- T. A. Downes & D. N. Figlio, "undated". "School Finance Reforms, Tax Limits, and Student Performance: Do Reforms Level Up or Dumb Down?," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1142-97, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
- Thomas Downes & David Figlio, 1998. "School Finance Reforms, Tax Limits, and Student Performance: Do Reforms Level-Up or Dumb Down?," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 9805, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
- Aaronson, Daniel, 1999. "The Effect of School Finance Reform on Population Heterogeneity," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 52(1), pages 5-29, March.
- Daniel Aaronson, 1998. "The effect of school finance reform on population heterogeneity," Working Paper Series WP-98-11, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
- Epple, Dennis, 1987. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Estimating Demand and Supply Functions for Differentiated Products," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 59-80, February. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)