On the (sequential) majority choice of public good size and location

This article studies majority voting over the size and location of a public good when voters differ both in income and in their preferences for the public good location. Public good provision is financed either by a lump sum tax or by a proportional income tax. We analyze both the simultaneous and the sequential determinations of the public good’s size and location. We show that, while the choice of the type of public good follows the traditional median logic, the majoritarian determination of the taxation rate need not coincide with the preferences of a median income citizen. With lump sum financing, income heterogeneity plays no role and the sequential equilibrium consists of the median location together with the public good level most-preferred by the individual located at the median distance from the median. This policy bundle also constitutes an equilibrium with simultaneous voting in the special case of a uniform bivariate distribution of individuals’ income and location. With proportional taxation, there is no policy equilibrium with simultaneous voting. We offer a complete characterization of the equations describing the sequential equilibrium in the general case and we show why and how our results depart from those most-preferred by the median income individual located at the median distance from the median. We also compare these majority voting allocations with the socially optimal one.

[1]  Patrick Bolton,et al.  The Breakup of Nations: A Political Econ-omy Analysis , 1997 .

[2]  John Duggan,et al.  Social choice and electoral competition in the general spatial model , 2006, J. Econ. Theory.

[3]  A. Alesina,et al.  Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions , 1997 .

[4]  Shlomo Weber,et al.  'Almost' Subsidy-Free Spatial Pricing in a Multi-Dimensional Setting , 2007, J. Econ. Theory.

[5]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility Under Majority Rule , 1967 .

[6]  Eugenio Peluso,et al.  Majority Voting in Multidimensional Policy Spaces: Kramer-Shepsle Versus Stackelberg , 2010 .

[7]  K. Shepsle Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models , 1979 .

[8]  A. Alesina,et al.  On the Number and Size of Nations , 1995 .

[9]  Carlo Perroni,et al.  Tiebout with Politics: Capital Tax Competition and Constitutional Choices , 2001 .

[10]  P. Jehiel,et al.  Constitutional Rules of Exclusion in Jurisdiction Formation , 1998 .

[11]  A. Alesina,et al.  The Size of Nations , 2003 .

[12]  J. Banks,et al.  Positive Political Theory I: Collective Preference , 1998 .

[13]  Gerald H. Kramer,et al.  Sophisticated voting over multidimensional choice spaces , 1972 .

[14]  Joshua S. Gans,et al.  Majority voting with single-crossing preferences , 1996 .

[15]  Filippo Gregorini Political Geography and Income Inequalities , 2009 .

[16]  H. Donald Forbes Positive Political Theory , 2004 .

[17]  Peter C. Ordeshook,et al.  Conditions for Voting Equilibria in Continuous Voter Distributions , 1980 .

[18]  Shlomo Weber,et al.  The Art of Making Everybody Happy: How to Prevent a Secession , 2001, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[19]  Paul Rothstein,et al.  Order restricted preferences and majority rule , 1990 .

[20]  Alberto Alesina,et al.  Political Jurisdictions in Heterogeneous Communities , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[21]  Philippe Jehiel,et al.  Free Mobility and the Optimal Number of Jurisdictions , 1997 .

[22]  M. Breton,et al.  Transfers in a polarized country: bridging the gap between efficiency and stability , 2005 .

[23]  M. Sklar Fonctions de repartition a n dimensions et leurs marges , 1959 .

[24]  Peter C. Ordeshook,et al.  Game Theory And Political Theory , 1987 .

[25]  A. Mas-Colell,et al.  Microeconomic Theory , 1995 .