What types of people sort to which public services?

被引:10
作者
Brasington, David M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cincinnati, Dept Econ, Cincinnati, OH 45221 USA
关键词
House price hedonic; demand for local public goods; tiebout sorting; PROPERTY-VALUES; DEMAND; CAPITALIZATION; QUALITY; TIEBOUT; MARKETS; RENTS; WAGES; BIAS;
D O I
10.1111/pirs.12210
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
We examine the characteristics of people who say they buy their houses for environmental quality, school quality, public safety and low taxes. We find, for example, that young people and people without school-aged children are more likely to buy their house for low taxes. We estimate a house price hedonic in a system of equations that models the public services people had in mind when they bought their house. We find a housing price elasticity of 0.53 for school spending, 0.23 for maths proficiency, -0.17 for the tax rate and -0.050 for the crime rate.
引用
收藏
页码:537 / +
页数:18
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   Open space, residential property values, and spatial context [J].
Anderson, Soren T. ;
West, Sarah E. .
REGIONAL SCIENCE AND URBAN ECONOMICS, 2006, 36 (06) :773-789
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2002, CensusCD 2000 Long Form
[3]   Do people vote with their feet? An empirical test of Tiebout's mechanism [J].
Banzhaf, Spencer ;
Walsh, Randall P. .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2008, 98 (03) :843-863
[4]  
Basten CC, 2014, 362 KOF
[5]  
BERGSTROM TC, 1973, AM ECON REV, V63, P280
[6]   The benefits of visibility improvement: New evidence from the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area [J].
Beron, K ;
Murdoch, J ;
Thayer, M .
JOURNAL OF REAL ESTATE FINANCE AND ECONOMICS, 2001, 22 (2-3) :319-337
[7]  
Bhattarai G, 2009, INT J ECOLOGICAL EC, V15, P34
[8]  
Bradley MartinB., 1992, Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1990
[9]   A mixed index approach to identifying hedonic price models [J].
Brasington, David M. ;
Hite, Diane .
REGIONAL SCIENCE AND URBAN ECONOMICS, 2008, 38 (03) :271-284
[10]   SCHOOL CHOICE: SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS [J].
Brasington, David M. ;
Hite, Diane .
CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY, 2014, 32 (01) :76-92