No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Les impôts locaux sont-ils gaspillés?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 August 2016
Résumé
Bien qu'il est généralement admis en économie publique que le fossé qui sépare l'approche positive des choix publics et leur approche normative implique l'existence de possibles pareto améliorations dans les choix en matiere de dépense publique, il semble que l'économiste manque d'outils adéquats pour déterminer la réelle importance de ces possibles améliorations. Le présent article vise à combler, en partie, le manque et met plus particulierement l'accent sur les inefficacités coût dans la production de biens et services publics locaux. En effet, ces inefficacités étant indubitablement des inefficacités paretiennes, elles sont nécessairement à l'origine d'un gaspillage des ressources fiscales. Une méthode paramétrique fondée sur l'application du concept économétrique de frontière stochastique au concept microéconomique de fonction d'utilité en équivalent monétaire est développée puis appliquée dans le contexte du modèle bien connu de l'electeur médian. Une mise œuvre à partir de données sur les communes françaises est finalement proposée.
Summary
Although public economists generally agree on the fact that the gap between the positive approach of local public choices on the one hand and their normative approach on the other hand entails the existence of potential pareto improvements in public expenditures, it seems that they still lack an adequate method to determine how important are these potential improvements. This paper is aimed at, partly, remedying these shortcomings and more specifically focuses on cost inefficiencies in the production of local public goods and services. Indeed, such inefficiencies are undoubtedly pareto inefficiencies and, therefore, are responsible for a waste of fiscal resources. A parametric method based on the implementation of the econometric concept of stochastic frontier to the microeconomic concept of money metric utility is developed and used to detect and measure cost inefficiencies in the context of the well known median voter model. An application to local public expenditures for French cities is then proposed.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , January 2005 , pp. 143 - 173
- Copyright
- Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2005
Footnotes
*
Faculté des Sciences Economiques - 7 Place Hoche - 35065 RENNES Cedex - FRANCE, courriel: [email protected]
References
Bibliographie
Afriat, S.
(1967), “The construction of utility
functions from expenditure data”, International
Economic Review, 8, pp.
67–77.Google Scholar
Afriat, S.
(1973), “On a system of inequalities in
demand analysis : an extension of the classical method”,
International Economic Review, 14, pp.
460–472.Google Scholar
Aigner, D., Lovell, C.
A. et Schmidt, P.
(1977), “Formulation and estimation of
stochastic frontier production function models”,
Journal of Econometrics, 6, pp.
21–37.Google Scholar
Battese, G.
E. et Coelli, T.
(1988), “Prediction of firm level technical
efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel
data”, Journal of Econometrics,
38, pp.
387–399.Google Scholar
Baudry, M., Leprince, M. et
Moreau, C.
(2002), «Préférences révélées, bien public
local et électeur médian : tests sur données françhises»,
Économic & Prévision, 156, pp.
125–146.Google Scholar
Bauer, P.
W. (1990), “Recent
developments in the econometric estimation of frontiers”,
Journal of Econometrics, 46, pp.
39–56.Google Scholar
Bergström, T. et
Goodman, R.
(1973), “Private demands for public
goods”, American Economic Review,
63, pp. 280–273.Google Scholar
Besley, T. et
Case, A.
(1995), “Incumbent behavior : vote-seeking,
tax-setting and yardstick competition”, American
Economic Review, 85, pp.
25–45.Google Scholar
Black, D.
(1951), The theory of committees and
elections, Cambridge University
Press,
Cambridge.Google Scholar
Borcherding, T. et
Deacon, R.
(1972), “The demand for the services of
nonfederal governments”, American Economic
Review, 62, pp.
891–901.Google Scholar
Bowen, H.
(1943), “The interpretation of voting in the
allocation of economic resources”, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 58, pp.
27–48.Google Scholar
Coelli, T., Rao, D. S.
P. et Battese, G. E.
(1998), An introduction to efficiency and
productivity analysis, Kluwer Academic
Publishers,
Boston.Google Scholar
Davis, M. et Hayes, K.
(1993), “The demand for good
government”, Review of Economics and
Statistics, 75, pp.
148–152.Google Scholar
Farrell, M.J.
(1957), “The measurement of productive
efficiency”, Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, Series A, General 120, pp.
253–281.Google Scholar
Forsund, F.
R., Lovell, C. A. et
Schmidt, P.
(1980), “A survey of frontier production
functions and of their relationship to efficiency
measurement”, Journal of Econometrics,
13, pp.
5–25.Google Scholar
Guengant, A.
(1998), «Évaluation économétrique des charges
des communes», Revue d'Économie Régionale et
Urbaine, 5, pp.
523–546.Google Scholar
Greene, W.
H. (1980), “Maximum
likelihood estimation of econometric frontier functions”,
Journal of Econometrics, 13, pp.
27–56.Google Scholar
Greene, W.
H. (1990), “A
gamma-distributed stochastic frontier model”,
Journal of Econometrics, 46, pp.
141–163.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, S. et
Hayes, K.
(1993), “Local public sector bureaucrats and
their input choices”, Journal of Urban
Economics, 33, pp.
151–166.Google Scholar
Hayes, K., Razzolini, L. et
Ross, L.
B. (1998),
“Bureaucratic choice and nonoptimal provision of public
goods : theory and evidence”, Public
Choice, 94, pp.
1–20.Google Scholar
Hayes, K. et Wood, L.
(1995), “Utility maximising bureaucrats : the
bureaucrat's point of view”, Public
Choice, 82, pp.
69–83.Google Scholar
Houthakker, H.
(1950), “Revealed preference and the utility
function”, Economica,
17, pp.
159–174.Google Scholar
Mc
Kenzie, L.
(1957), “Demand theory without a utility
index”, Review of Economic Studies,
24, pp.
183–189.Google Scholar
Meeusen, W. et
Van Den
Broeck, J.
(1977), “Efficiency estimation from
Cobb-Douglas production functions with composed error”,
International Economic Review, 18, pp.
435–444.Google Scholar
Migue, J.
L. et Belanger, G.
(1974), “Toward a general theory of
managerial discretion”, Public Choice,
17, pp.
27–43.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W.
A. (1968), “Non
market decision making : the peculiar economics of
bureaucracy”, American Economic Review,
58, pp.
293–305.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W.
A. (1971), Bureaucracy and
representative governments,
Aldine-Atherton,
Chicago.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W.
A. (1976),
“Bureaucrats and politicians”, The
Journal of Law and Economics, 18, pp.
617–643.Google Scholar
Olson, J.
A., Schmidt, P. P. et
Waldman, D.
M. (1980), “A monte
carlo study of estimators of stochastic frontier production
functions”, Journal of Econometrics,
13, pp.
67–82.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.
(1948), “Consumption theory in terms of
revealed preference”, Economica,
15, pp.
242–253.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.
(1954), “The pure theory of public
expenditure”, Review of Economics and
Statistics, 36, pp.
387–389.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.
(1974), “Complementarity : an essay on the
40th anniversary of the Hicks-Allen revolution on demand
theory”, Journal of Economic Literature,
64, n°4, pp.
1255–1289.Google Scholar
Sonstelie, J.
C. et Portney, P. R.
(1980), “Gross rents and market values :
testing the implications of Tiebout's hypothesis”,
Journal of Urban Economics, 7, pp.
102–118.Google Scholar
Turnbull, G. et
Chang, C.
(1998), “The median voter according to
GARP”, Southern Economic Journal,
64, pp.
1001–1010.Google Scholar
Varian, H.
(1990), “Goodness of fit in optimizing
models”, Journal of Econometrics,
46, pp.
125–140.Google Scholar