Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:11:44.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The range of local public services and population size: Is there a “zoo effect” in French jurisdictions?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

Quentin Frère ,
Hakim Hammadou  and
Sonia Paty
Get access

Summary

This article contributes to the small literature on the relationship between the range of local public services and population size. Using new data on French local jurisdictions, we test the hypothesis that larger jurisdictions provide a broader range of public goods (the so-called “zoo effect”, Oates (1988)). We take advantage of the fact that, in France, many municipalities recently joined together, forming groups of municipalities (or communities) in order to achieve economies of scale. Using spatial econometrics, we find some evidence for the existence of a zoo effect in French communities. In other terms, larger communities provide a broader range of services than smaller ones. The intensity of the zoo effect is higher in urban than in rural areas.

Cet article est une contribution originale sur la relation entre la gamme des services publics locaux et la taille de la population. Cette étude est menée sur une base de données sur les collectivités locales françaises et teste l'existence d'un effet zoo (Oates, 1988), c'est-à-dire l'idée que la gamme des biens publics locaux offerts augmente avec la taille des collectivités. À l'aide de l'économétrie spatiale, nous montrons l'existence d'un effet zoo dans les groupements intercommunaux français qui ont été créés afin de réaliser des économies d'échelle. En d'autres termes, nous trouvons que la variété des services offerts est proportionnelle à la taille de population du groupement. Nous montrons également que cet effet zoo est plus intense dans les zones urbaines que rurales.

Keywords

local public servicespopulation sizezoo effectFrench jurisdictionscommunitiesspatial econometricsH4H7biens publics locauxtaille de populationeffet zoocollectivités locales françaisesgroupements intercommunauxéconométrie spatialeH4H7
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 77 , Issue 2-3 , September 2011 , pp. 87 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2011 

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

*

INRA-CESAER Dijon

**

EQUIPPE, Universités de Lille

***

CREM, CNRS et Université de Caen and EQUIPPE, Universités de Lille

References

Anselin, L. (1988), “A test for spatial autocorrelation in seemingly unrelated regressions”, Economics Letters, Vol.28, No.4, pp.335–341.Google Scholar
Anselin, L., Bera, A.K., Florax, R. and Yoon, M.J. (1996), “Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol.26, No.1, pp.77–104.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T.C. and Goodman, R.P. (1973), “Private demands for public goods”, The American Economic Review, Vol.63, No.3, pp.280–296.Google Scholar
Borcherding, T.E. and Deacon, R.T. (1972), “The demand for the services of nonfederal governments”, The American Economic Review, Vol.62, No.5, pp. 891–901.Google Scholar
Brambor, T, Clark, W.R. and Golder, M. (2005), “Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses”, Political Analysis, Vol. 14, pp.63–82.Google Scholar
Breunig, R. and Rocaboy, Y. (2008), “Percapita public expenditures and population size: A non-parametric analysis using French data”, Public Choice, Vol.136, No.3, pp.429–455.Google Scholar
Brueckner, J.K. and Saavedra, L.A. (2000), “Do local governments engage in strategic property-tax competition?”, Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers, No.0357.Google Scholar
Case, A.C., Rosen, H.S. and Hines, J. Jr., (1993), “Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: Evidence from the states”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol.52, No.3, pp.285–307.Google Scholar
Christaller, W. (1933), Central Places in Southern Germany, in Baskin, C.W. (trans.) Die Zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Josselin, J.M., Rocaboy, Y. and Tavéra, C. (2009), “The influence of population size on the relevance of demand or supply models for local public goods: Evidence from France”, Papers in Regional Science, Vol.88, No.3, pp.563–574.Google Scholar
Leprince, M. and Guengant, A. (2002), “Interactions fiscales verticales et réaction des communes à la coopération intercommunale”, Revue Economique, Vol.53, No.3, pp.525–535.Google Scholar
Oates, W.E. (1988), “On the measurement of congestion in the provision of local public goods”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.24, No.1, pp.85–94.Google Scholar
Reiter, M. and Weichenrieder, A. (1997), “Are public goods public? A critical survey of the Demand estimates for local public services”, Finanz Archiv, Vol.54, pp.374–408.Google Scholar
Revelli, F. (2005), “On spatial public finance empirics”, International Tax and Public Finance, Vol.12, N°4, pp.475–492.Google Scholar
Schmandt, H.J. and Stephens, G.R. (1960), “Measuring municipal output”, National Tax Journal, Vol.13, No.4, pp.369–375.Google Scholar