Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:31:32.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The dynamic properties of institutional reform: an analysis of US states

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2018

J. Brandon Bolen*
Affiliation:
School of Business, Mississippi College, Clinton, Mississippi, United States
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Decades of research show that economic freedom is highly correlated with desirable economic outcomes both internationally and locally. Yet we still know little about the transition from low to high levels of economic freedom, particularly for institutions under local control. This research shows that while economic freedom in the United States is decreasing with regard to institutions under national control, it is increasing with regard to institutions under state and local control. Economic freedom increases gradually among the states, driven primarily by increasing labor market freedom. Decreases in economic freedom, on the other hand, occur sharply, often following stark changes to state fiscal policies.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. A. (2002), ‘Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the Making of the Modern World Income Distribution’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117: 12311294.Google Scholar
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. A. (2005), ‘Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-run Growth’, in Aghion, P. M. and Durlauf, S. N. (eds), Handbook of Economic Growth, 1A, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 385472.Google Scholar
Ashby, N. J. (2007), ‘Economic Freedom and Migration Flows between US States’, Southern Economic Journal, 73: 677697.Google Scholar
Bellante, D. and Porter, P. (1998), ‘Public and Private Employment over the Business Cycle: A Ratchet Theory of Government Growth’, Journal of Labor Research, 19: 613628.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1983), ‘A Theory of Competition among Pressure Groups for Political Influence’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98: 371400.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. L., Faria, H. J., Gwartney, J. D. and Morales, D. R. (2017), ‘Economic Institutions and Comparative Economic Development: A Post-colonial Perspective’, World Development, 96, 503519.Google Scholar
Calcagno, P. T. and Escaleras, M. (2007), ‘Party Alternation, Divided Government, and Fiscal Performance within US States’, Economics of Governance, 8: 111128.Google Scholar
Calcagno, P. T. and Sobel, R. S. (2014), ‘Regulatory Costs on Entrepreneurship and Establishment Employment Size’, Small Business Economics, 42: 541559.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F. and Lundström, S. (2002), ‘Economic Freedom and Growth: Decomposing the Effects’, Public Choice, 112, 335344.Google Scholar
Cogan, J. F. (2017), The High Cost of Good Intentions: A History of US Federal Entitlement Programs, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1937), ‘The Nature of the Firm’, Economica, 4: 386405.Google Scholar
Esposto, A. G. and Zaleski, P. A. (1999), ‘Economic Freedom and the Quality of Life: An Empirical Analysis’, Constitutional Political Economy, 10: 185197.Google Scholar
Faria, H. J. and Montesinos, H. M. (2009), ‘Does Economic Freedom Cause Prosperity? An IV Approach’, Public Choice, 141(1–2): 103127.Google Scholar
Glaeser, E. L. and Shleifer, A. (2002), ‘Legal Origins’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117: 11931229.Google Scholar
Gwartney, J. D., Holcombe, R. G. and Lawson, R. A. (2006), ‘Institutions and the Impact of Investment on Growth’, Kyklos, 59: 255273.Google Scholar
Gwartney, J. D., Lawson, R. and Block, W. (1996), Economic Freedom of the World, 1975–1995, Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
Gwartney, J., Lawson, R. and Hall, J. (2017), Economic Freedom of the World: 2017 Annual Report, Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
Hall, J. C. and Lawson, R. A. (2014), ‘Economic Freedom of the World: An Accounting of the Literature’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 32: 119.Google Scholar
Hall, J. C. (2016), Institutional Convergence: Exit or Voice?’, Journal of Economics and Finance, 40: 829840.Google Scholar
Heckelman, J. C. and Knack, S. (2009), ‘Aid, Economic Freedom, and Growth’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 27: 4653.Google Scholar
Heller, L. R. and Stephenson, E. (2014), ‘Economic Freedom and Labor Market Conditions: Evidence from the States’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 32: 5666.Google Scholar
Higgs, R. (1987), Crisis and Leviathan Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holcombe, R. G. (1999), ‘Veterans Interests and the Transition to Government Growth: 1870–1915’, Public Choice, 99: 311326.Google Scholar
Holcombe, R. G. (2005), ‘Government Growth in the Twenty-first Century’, Public Choice, 124: 95114.Google Scholar
Holcombe, R. G. and Lacombe, D. J. (2004), ‘Factors Underlying the Growth of Local Government in the 19th Century United States’, Public Choice, 120: 359377.Google Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A. (2008), The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins’, Journal of Economic Literature, 46: 285332.Google Scholar
Mises, L. von. (1944), Bureaucracy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Naghshpour, S. and Nissan, E. (2018), ‘State and Regional Convergence in Economic Freedom of North America’, Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 48: 3776.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W. A. (1971), Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. (1991), ‘Institutions’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 97112.Google Scholar
Oates, W. E. (1972), Fiscal Federalism, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Qian, Y. and Weingast, B. R. (1997), ‘Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11: 8392.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1964), Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance, Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Romer, T. and Rosenthal, H. (1978), ‘Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo’, Public Choice, 33: 2743.Google Scholar
Ruseski, J. E. and Maresova, K. (2014), ‘Economic Freedom, Sport Policy, and Individual Participation in Physical Activity: An International Comparison’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 32: 4255.Google Scholar
Sobel, R. S. (2008), ‘Testing Baumol: Institutional Quality and the Productivity of Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 23: 641655.Google Scholar
Sobel, R. (2017), ‘The Rise and Decline of Nations: The Dynamic Properties of Institutional Reform’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 13: 549574. doi: 10.1017/S1744137417000017.Google Scholar
Stansel, D. and Tuszynski, M. P. (2018), ‘Sub-national Economic Freedom: A Review and Analysis of the Literature’, Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Stansel, D., Torra, J., and McMahon, F. (2016), Economic Freedom of North America 2016, Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
Stansel, D., Torra, J. and McMahon, F. (2017), Economic Freedom of North America 2017, Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
Stroup, M. D. (2007), ‘Economic Freedom, Democracy, and the Quality of Life’, World Development, 35: 5266.Google Scholar
Tiebout, C. M. (1956), ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures’, Journal of Political Economy, 64: 416424.Google Scholar
Weingast, B. R. (1995), ‘The Economic Role of political institutions: Market-preserving Federalism and Economic Development’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11: 131.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. (2017), ‘Economic Freedom and Growth in US State-Level Market Incomes at the Top and Bottom’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 35: 93112.Google Scholar