Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:53:19.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative Reconsidered: Addressing Endogeneity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Melissa J. Marschall  and
Anirudh V.S. Ruhil
Melissa J. Marschall
Affiliation:
Rice University
Anirudh V.S. Ruhil
Affiliation:
Ohio University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several recent studies have investigated the relationship between direct democracy and public policy outcomes, with mixed findings. These inconsistencies may stem, in part, from researchers' failure to recognize that direct democracy institutions are distributed nonrandomly across the American states. That is, certain factors may lead a state to adopt the initiative process and influence other policy choices. We revisit the question of how the initiative influences state fiscal policy using panel data from 1960-2000 and a full-information maximum likelihood estimator that explicitly accounts for the endogeneity of the initiative. Our findings suggest that failure to endogenize the initiative in empirical analyses leads to substantially biased estimates of its effects. In particular, we find that once factors that predict whether a state has adopted the initiative are controlled, the initiative has a positive effect on state revenue generation and spending.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , Winter 2005 , pp. 327 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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

Achen, Christopher H. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amemiya, Takeshi. 1985. Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bails, Dale G. 1990. “The Effectiveness of Tax-Expenditure Limitations: A Re-evaluation.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 49:223–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960 - 1993.” American Journal of Political Science 42:337–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Christopher. 2001. “Direct Democracy and Redistribution: An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of the Voter Initiative on Public Finance.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Case, Anne. 1994. “Unnatural Experiments? Estimating the Incidence of Endogenous Policies.” National Bureau of Economics Research. Working Paper #4956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, Anthony, and Richardson, Lilliard E. Jr. 2004. “Testing Formal Models of Direct Democracy.” Presented at the Fourth Annual Conference on State Politics and Policy, Cuyahoga Falls, OH.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2002. “Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government.” British Journal of Political Science 32:371–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004. “Evolution in State Governance Structures: Unintended Consequences of State Tax and Expenditure Limitations.” Political Research Quarterly 57:189–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camobreco, John F. 1998. “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process.” Journal of Politics 60:819–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Linda. 1979. “Cyclic Sets in Multidimensional Voting Models.” Journal of Economic Theory 20:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of State Governments. Various years. The Book of the States. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
Crain, W. Mark. 1999. “Districts, Diversity, and Fiscal Biases: Evidence from the American States.” Journal of Law and Economics 42:675–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, W. Mark, and Crain, Nicole V.. 1998. “Fiscal Consequences of Budget Baselines.” Journal of Public Economics 67:421–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, Thomas. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Denzau, Arthur T., Mackay, Robert J., and Weaver, Carolyn. 1981. “On the Initiative-Referendum Option and Control of Monopoly Government.” In Tax and Expenditure Limitations, eds. Ladd, Helen F. and Tideman, Nicholas. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, and Bowler, Shaun. 1998. “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: An Extension.” American Journal of Political Science 42:1020–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Richard J. 2002. Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Farnham, Paul G. 1990. “The Impact of Citizen Influence on Local Government Expenditure.” Public Choice 64:201–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996a. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40:99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996b. “Legislatures, Initiatives and Representation: The Effects of State Legislative Initiatives on Policy.” Political Research Quarterly 49:263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, Lupia, Arthur R., and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 2004. “When Does Government Limit the Impact of Voter Initiatives? The Politics of Implementation and Enforcement.” Journal of Politics 66:43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Matsusaka, John G.. 1995. “Deviations from Constituent Interests: The Role of Legislative Structure and Political Parties in the States.” Economic Inquiry 33:383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Matsusaka, John G.. 2001. “Fiscal Policy, Legislative Size, and Political Parties: Evidence from State and Local Governments in the First Half of the 20th Century.” National Tax Journal 54:57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, William H. 2003. Econometric Analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hagen, Michael G., Lascher, Edward L. Jr., and Camobreco, John F.. 2001. “Response to Matsusaka: Estimating the Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Policy Responsiveness.” Journal of Politics 63:1257–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamm, Keith E., and Squire, Peverill. 2005. 101 Chambers: Congress, State Legislatures, and the Future of Legislative Studies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Samuel P. 1964. “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era.” Pacific Northwest Quarterly 55:157–69.Google Scholar
Hersch, Phillip L., and McDougall, Gerald S.. 1997. “Direct Legislation: Determinants of Legislator Support for Voter Initiatives.” Public Finance Quarterly 25:327–43.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard I. 1991. Comparative Socio-Economic, Public Policy, and Political Data, 1900-1960 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Holtz-Eakin, Douglas. 1988. “The Line Item Veto and Public Sector Budgets: Evidence from the States.” Journal of Public Economics 36:269–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Initiative and Referendum Institute. N.d. “Fact Sheet Number 2: The History of the Initiative and Referendum.” http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/Drop%20Down%20Boxes/Quick%20Facts/History%20of%20I&R.pdf (July 12, 2005).Google Scholar
King, James D. 2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Brian. 2000. “The Flypaper Effect Unstuck: Evidence on Endogenous Grants from the Federal Highway Aid Program.” Working Paper. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Division of Research and Statistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascher, Edward L. Jr., Hagen, Michael G., and Rochlin, Steven A.. 1996. “Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies, and Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 58:760–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Matsusaka, John G.. 2004. “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science 7:463–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestas, Cherie. 2000. “Professional Legislatures and Ambitious Politicians: Policy Responsiveness of State Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:663–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magleby, David B. 1994. “Direct Legislation in the United States.” In Referendums Around the World, eds. Butler, David and Ranney, Austin. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
Marino, Anthony M., and Matsusaka, John G.. 2001. “Decision Processes, Agency Problems, and Information: An Economic Analysis of Budget Procedures.” Working Paper. University of Southern California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 1992. “The Economics of Direct Legislation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107:541–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” Journal of Political Economy 103:587–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2000. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative in the First Half of the Twentieth Century.” Journal of Law and Economics 43:619–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2003a. “Subversion of the Many by the Few: Some Scientific Evidence on the Initiative Process.” Presented at the JCLI Direct Democracy Symposium, San Diego, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2003b. “Initiative and Referendum.” In Encyclopedia of Public Choice, eds. Rowley, C. K. and Schneider, F.. New York: Kluwer Publishing.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2003c. “The Initiative and Referendum in American Cities: Basic Patterns.” In The Initiative and Referendum Almanac: A Comprehensive Reference Guide to Citizen Lawmaking around the World, ed. Waters, M. Dane. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G., and McCarty, Nolan M.. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” Journal of Politics 63:1250–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, William G. 1993. The Changing American Mind: How and Why American Public Opinion Changed between 1960 and 1988. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1979. “General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models.” Econometrica 47:1085–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medoff, Marshall H. 1997. “The Political Implications of State Political Ideology: A Measure Tested.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56:145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikesell, John L. 1986. “The Path of the Tax Revolts: Statewide Expenditure and Tax Control Referenda since Proposition 13.” State and Local Government Review 18:5–12.Google Scholar
Oakley, Lisa, and Neale, Thomas H.. 1995. Citizen Initiative Proposals Appearing on State Ballots, 1976-1992. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Plutzer, Eric, and Berkman, Michael B.. 2003. “The Consequences of State Institutions for Local Policy Responsiveness: Policy Preferences and Spending in American School Districts.” Presented at the Third Annual State Politics and Policy Conference, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991. “Patterns of Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 35:228–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. “Description of Nominate Data.” http://voteview.com/page2a.htm (July 6, 2005).Google Scholar
Poterba, James M. 1995a. “Balanced-Budget Rules: Budget Institutions and Fiscal Policy in the U.S. States.” American Economic Review 86:395–400.Google Scholar
Poterba, James M. 1995b. “Capital Budgets, Borrowing Rules, and State Capital Spending.” Journal of Public Economics 56:165–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poterba, James M., and Rueben, Kim S.. 1995. “The Effects of Property-Tax Limits on Wages and Employment in the Local Public Sector.” American Economic Review 85:384–9.Google Scholar
Preston, Anne E., and Ichniowski, Casey. “A National Perspective on the Nature and Effects of the Local Property Tax Revolt, 1976-1986.” National Tax Journal 44:123–45.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1978. “Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo.” Public Choice 33:27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 1998. The Decline of Representative Democracy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Rueben, Kim S. 1995. “Tax Limitations and Government Growth: The Effect of State Tax and Expenditure Limits on State and Local Government.” Working Paper. Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Scheiber, Harry N. 1997. “Foreword: The Direct Ballot and State Constitutionalism.” Rutgers Law Journal 28:787–823.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 1978. “Instability of Simple Dynamic Games.” Review of Economic Studies 45:575–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadbegian, Ronald J. 1999. “The Effect of Tax and Expenditure Limitations on the Revenue Structure of Local Government, 1962-87.” National Tax Journal 52:221–37.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the House of Representatives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth, and Weingast, Barry. 1981. “Political Preferences for the Pork Barrel: A Generalization.” American Journal of Political Science 25:96–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A. 1999. “Howard Jarvis, Populist Entrepreneur: Reevaluating the Causes of Proposition 13.” Social Science History 23:173–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A. 2001. “Special Interests and Direct Democracy: An Historical Glance.” In The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking, ed. Waters, M. Dane. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2004. Educated by the Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Lubinski, Joseph. 2002. “Direct Democracy during the Progressive Era: A Crack in the Populist Veneer?” Journal of Policy History 14:349–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sylla, Richard E., Legler, John B., and Wallis, John. 1995. State and Local Government [United States]: Sources and Uses of Funds, Census Statistics, Twentieth Century [Through 1982] [Computer file]. New York, NY, Athens, GA, and College Park, MD: Richard E. Sylla, New York University, John B. Legler, University of Georgia, and John Wallis, University of Maryland [producers], 1993. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1967. Towards a Mathematics of Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1981. “Why So Much Stability?” Public Choice 37:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Bureau of the Census. Various years. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. Various years. State and Local Personal Income. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/statelocal.htm (June 15, 2005).Google Scholar
United States Bureau of the Census. Various years. Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances. http://www.census.gov/econ/overview/go0400.html (June 15, 2005).Google Scholar
Von Hagen, Jurgen. “Fiscal Rules, Fiscal Institutions, and Fiscal Performance.” The Economic and Social Review 33:263–84.Google Scholar
Waters, M. Dane, ed. 2001. The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking: The Growing Regulation of Initiative and Referendum. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Waters, M. Dane, ed. 2003. The Initiative and Referendum Almanac: A Comprehensive Reference Guide to the Initiative and Referendum Process. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., and Marshall, William J.. 1988. “The Industrial Organization of Congress: Or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets.” Journal of Political Economy 96:132–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., Shepsle, Kenneth K., and Johnsen, Christopher. 1981. “The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics.” The Journal of Political Economy 89:642–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zax, Jeffrey S. 1989. “Initiatives and Government Expenditures.” Public Choice 63:267–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph F. 1999. The Initiative: Citizen Law-Making. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar