This article introduces Buchanan's comment on Tiebout's "A Pure Theory of Local Public Expenditures". It helps us to understand the nature of the relationship between Buchanan and Tiebout. Usually, it is claimed that Buchanan modelled Tiebout's insights, that there exists a Buchanan-Tiebout hypothesis, and that Buchanan in 1965 complemented what Tiebout had written in 1956. We show that Buchanan could not have written "An Economic Theory of Clubs" as a complement of "A Pure Theory of Local Public Expenditures". He disagreed with Tiebout's ideas on mobility because he saw mobility as a cause of inefficiencies and not a cause of homogeneity in groups. This is what we show by putting Buchanan's comment on Tiebout into historical perspective. It appears that Buchanan interpreted Tiebout 1956 from the perspective of his works on fiscal federalism from the early 1950s. We show that there is a continuity between Buchanan's work from the early 1950s and his works in the early 1970s; and Buchanan's way of reading Tiebout is part of it. Hence, when he wrote "An Economic Theory of Clubs", Buchanan was convinced that Tiebout was wrong and that he was offering an alternative framework for public economics.
The distance between Buchanan's “An Economic Theory of Clubs” and Tiebout's “A Pure Theory of Local Public Expenditures”. New insights based on an unpublished manuscript
Marciano, Alain
Co-first
2017-01-01
Abstract
This article introduces Buchanan's comment on Tiebout's "A Pure Theory of Local Public Expenditures". It helps us to understand the nature of the relationship between Buchanan and Tiebout. Usually, it is claimed that Buchanan modelled Tiebout's insights, that there exists a Buchanan-Tiebout hypothesis, and that Buchanan in 1965 complemented what Tiebout had written in 1956. We show that Buchanan could not have written "An Economic Theory of Clubs" as a complement of "A Pure Theory of Local Public Expenditures". He disagreed with Tiebout's ideas on mobility because he saw mobility as a cause of inefficiencies and not a cause of homogeneity in groups. This is what we show by putting Buchanan's comment on Tiebout into historical perspective. It appears that Buchanan interpreted Tiebout 1956 from the perspective of his works on fiscal federalism from the early 1950s. We show that there is a continuity between Buchanan's work from the early 1950s and his works in the early 1970s; and Buchanan's way of reading Tiebout is part of it. Hence, when he wrote "An Economic Theory of Clubs", Buchanan was convinced that Tiebout was wrong and that he was offering an alternative framework for public economics.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
