Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:43:19.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Les impôts locaux sont-ils gaspillés?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Marc Baudry
Marc Baudry*
Affiliation:
CREREG (UMR CNRS 6211), Université de Rennes 1
Get access

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

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

dépense publique localeefficacité coûtfonction de revenu minimumfrontière stochastiqueélecteur médianD78H72C52local public expenditurecost efficiencyminimum wage functionstochastic frontiermedian voterD78H72C52
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 

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.)

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
Varian, H. (1995), Analyse microéconomique, De Boeck.Google Scholar