The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Public Investment and Budget Rules for State vs. Local Governments Marco Bassetto WP 2008-21 Public Investment and Budget Rules for State vs. Local Governments Marco Bassetto∗ Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago NBER Abstract Across different layers of the U.S. government there are surprisingly large differences in institutional provisions that impose fiscal discipline, such as constitutionally mandated deficit or debt limits, or specific tax bases. In this paper we develop a framework that can be used to quantitatively assess their costs and benefits. The model features both endogenous and exogenous mobility across jurisdictions, so we can evaluate whether the different degree of mobility at the local vs. national level can justify different institutional restrictions. In preliminary results, we show that pure land taxes have very beneficial incentive effects, but can only raise limited amounts of revenues. In contrast, under exogenous mobility, income taxes lead unambiguously to insufficient incentives to invest in public capital, unless the fiscal constraints explicitly favor such investment. This conclusion seems to hold even with the introduction of endogenous mobility, since adverse congestion effects from inefficient migration offset the beneficial impact of (partial) capitalization of future taxes into land prices. ∗ Very preliminary. I am indebted to Gadi Barlevy, Jeff Campbell, Daniele Coen–Pirani, Mariacristina De Nardi, Leslie McGranahan, and seminar participants at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and the University of Chicago for helpful comments and discussions. I also thank Andrew Butters and Aspen Gorry for their valuable research assistance, and NSF for financial support. The views expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the Federal Reserve System. 1 1 Introduction The Unites States offers a rich variety of different institutions for limiting government indebtedness at different levels of decentralization. While almost all states are constitutionally restricted to balance their budget every budget cycle, except for public investment, the federal government is only constrained by a legislated debt cap that is routinely lifted whenever needed. The practice of states does not extend to lower-level jurisdictions (such as counties and cities), where there is a wide heterogeneity in the forms of restrictions to indebtedness.1 In previous work (Bassetto with Sargent [5]), we quantified the role of mobility and demographics in generating departures from Ricardian equivalence at the state level and the federal level. Because of the higher degree of (gross) mobility, we found that states reap much bigger efficiency gains than the federal government from adopting a “golden rule” that forbids borrowing for recurring expenses but allows it for capital projects. In that paper we assumed mobility to be driven entirely by exogenous events, so that public investment has no effect on population size and/or property prices. This assumption seems a reasonable approximation for large entities such as states or countries, since mobility in that case is likely to be driven predominantly by job opportunities, family decisions, and other factors that are only weakly linked to government policy.2 However, the same assumption is no longer appropriate in considering mobility at the local level, where households face a choice even when constrained by the job location and/or family ties. This paper develops a framework to quantitatively assess the role of different institutional restrictions on government policy in delivering efficient public investment when mobility can be driven both by exogenous events and by an optimal location choice. In developing our analysis, we build upon two sets of existing papers. First, there is a very large literature in local public finance that analyzes the interplay between mobility and the efficient provision of public goods. This literature starts from Tiebout [21], and highlights the role of the source of taxes (property vs. income or head taxes), the elasticity of the demand and supply of land (with particular emphasis on zoning restrictions for the latter), and the role of congestion externalities.3 This literature has mostly dealt with static environments, where the location and policy decisions are taken at one point in time. A few papers have attempted to bring dynamics into the picture to better analyze the role of public investment and debt,4 deriving some of the qualitative results that we will discuss below. However, these dynamic models rely on generations that live for two periods only, and are thus not well suited for quantitative work. More recently, there has been research into computable models where agents face dynamic choices both privately and as participants in the political process.5 These papers have mostly 1 See e.g. Miranda, Picur, and Straley [18]. For examples of the low estimate of endogenous mobility across states, see Meyer [16] and Gelbach [9]. 3 For a literature survey, see e.g. Mieszkowski and Zodrow [17]; Stiglitz [20] contains a thorough discussion of some of the central aspects in this debate. 4 See e.g. Kotlikoff and Rosenthal [15], Wildasin and Wilson [24], Schulz and Sj¨str¨m [19], and Conley and o o Rangel [7]. 5 See e.g. Hassler et al. [11], Hassler et al. [10], Doepke and Zilibotti [8], Azzimonti [1], and Azzimonti, Battaglini, and Coate [2]. 2 2 worked with what Klein, Krusell, and R´ ıos-Rull [14] defined a “generalized Euler equation.” In this paper, we show how to apply similar tools to local public finance, and we provide some preliminary examples of the conclusions that can be drawn. 2 The Model 2.1 Preferences and Technology We consider an economy populated by a continuum of households i ∈ I; each of them must choose to live in one of a continuum of towns j ∈ J . We normalize to one the measure of households and towns. From the aggregate perspective, all towns are identical; in particular, ¯ each of them encompasses L units of land. Each household consumes a private good and enjoys the services from land and a durable local public good. In addition, in each period the household has a set Nit of N towns where it can potentially live, and for each of those an idiosyncratic, location-specific utility shock ψijt that is independent across the N towns and distributed according to a cumulative distribution function ˆ F . Over time, the location-specific shocks evolve as follows: with probability θ, both the set of towns and the shock remain the same as in the previous period. With probability 1 − θ, the household draws a new set of towns and a new location-specific utility shock, both independent of the previous realizations. This exogenous shock can be interpreted both as a major life event that affects location preferences and as the death of a household, which is then replaced by a newly born household to preserve a constant population. In the notation that follows, I will assume the first interpretation, whereby a household is infinitely lived (as an altruistically linked dynasty). However, the only change that is needed for the second interpretation to apply is to assume that annuities markets for wealth are present. For the purpose of calibration, we will interpret θ as stemming from both forces, and we will assume that the proper annuity markets are open. Summarizing, household i’s preferences are given by ∞ β t [cit + w (Lit ) + v E0 t=0 Gj t t µj t t + ψijt t ], where cit is consumption by household i in period t, Lit is the amount of land whose services are consumed by household i in period t, jt is the town where person i chooses to live in period t, Gjt t is the amount of a durable public good (“public capital”) provided in town jt in period t, µjt t is the density of population in town jt in period t, and w and v are continuously differentiable and strictly concave functions. The assumption of linear preferences in private consumption greatly simplifies the analysis by eliminating wealth effects from the household preferences over land and public goods.6 For tractability, we also need to assume that all households benefit in the 6 Bassetto with Sargent [5] discusses robustness of the results with respect to this assumption in the context of a model with exogenous mobility. In the present context, endogenous sorting by wealth would however potentially generate further complications. 3 same way from the public good. Finally, note that we assume that public capital is subject to congestion externalities, so a household only benefits from its level per capita.7 We assume v and w to be strictly increasing and concave. Preferences are only defined over location decisions that belong to the set Nit at each time t. We assume that a law of large numbers applies across households,8 so that in each period each town j has a density N of potential inhabitants, and the c.d.f. of the utility that each potential inhabitant receives compared to living in the next best city is given by the c.d.f. of ˆ ˆ X − Y , with X ∼ F and Y ∼ F N −1 . We denote by F this c.d.f., and we assume that it is continuously differentiable. In each period, households receive an exogenous endowment y.9 There is a constant-returnsto-scale technology that turns one unit of endowment into one unit of private consumption. Likewise, another constant-returns-to-scale technology turns one unit of endowment from a unit density of households into one unit of public investment in any given location. Public capital depreciates at a rate δ. 2.2 Government The provision of the public good is decided by majority voting by the residents of each town. Public financing comes from either income or land taxes. We denote income taxes per capita as Tt and land taxes per unit of land τt . Since land is homogeneous and there are no structures, a land tax is equivalent to a property tax in this setup. We assume that a fraction x of investment can be financed with debt, and that the town government is committed to repay interest and a fraction α of outstanding debt in each period. 3 Efficient Allocations Because of quasilinear preferences, the allocation of people, land, and public capital remains the same along the Pareto frontier; only the allocation of private consumption is affected.10 To avoid well-known measurability issues, it is convenient to index each household by the sequence of realizations of idiosyncratic shocks.11 A Pareto-optimal allocation will thus be described by a sequence of aggregate consumption {Ct }∞ , a sequence of government spending by each town t=0 {{Gjt}j∈J }∞ ,12 and stochastic sequences of land holdings and locations {Lt , jt }∞ , adapted to t=0 t=0 7 We could allow for a weaker congestion effect, as long as w is sufficiently increasing to ensure a uniform distribution of households across all towns. The analysis would be considerably more complicated if clustering of households emerged endogenously from the increasing returns intrinsic in the public good. 8 See Judd [13] and Uhlig [22] for a discussion of the law of large numbers in the context of models with a continuum of households. 9 Introducing private capital and labor would have no effect on the results; see Bassetto with Sargent [4, 5]. 10 We assume here that the nonnegativity constraint on consumption does not apply, or we restrict our attention to the region where it is not binding. 11 See Jovanovic and Rosenthal [12] for related discussion. 12 Measurability is not an issue for towns, since they will all be identical in the optimal allocation and in the equilibria that we will analyze. Still, we use L∞ as the relevant space for {Gjt }j∈J , so public capital is only 4 the history of location options {Ns }t and the history of shocks {{ψjs }j∈Ns }t that solve the s=0 s=0 following problem: ∞ Gj t t β t [Ct + w (Lt ) + v max E0 + ψjt t ], µj t t t=0 subject to the output endowment constraints, (Gjt − (1 − δ)Gj t−1 )dj ≤ y Ct + ∀t j∈J land constraints, t N ˆ ¯ dF (ψqs ) ≤ L ∀t, a.s. in j ∈ J . Lt ({Ns }t ,{{ψjs }j∈Ns }t ):jt =j s=0 s=0 s=0 q∈Ns and the definition of µjt t ˆ dF (ψqs ) ∀t, a.s. in j ∈ J . µjt := N ({Ns }t ,{{ψjs }j∈Ns }t ):jt =j s=0 q∈N s=0 s=0 s By the symmetry of the shocks, it is straightforward to verify that a Pareto-optimal allocation assigns each household to its most preferred location according to the idiosyncratic shock; ¯ furthermore, all households consume L units of land (so µjt t ≡ 1). Finally, the efficient condition for the provision of public capital requires the same level of public capital in (almost) all towns: v ′ (Geff ) = 1 − β(1 − δ) (1) The intuition behind equation (1) is straightforward: producing one additional unit of the public good in each town costs one unit of aggregate consumption, but has an immediate benefit captured by v ′ (Geff ) and a future benefit in that it allows to cut investment and increase aggregate consumption in the next period by 1 − δ units, which are discounted at the rate β.13 4 Markets and Competitive Equilibrium We assume that there is no rental market for land;14 in order to live in each town, a household must own the land whose services it consumes. There are no transaction costs from selling or buying the land, nor are there moving costs, apart from the possible loss in location-specific utility. determined up to sets of towns of measure 0. 13 Because of symmetry, the sentence above applies to any set of positive measure of towns, so we are not constraining the planner to deliver the same public good everywhere, but rather this is part of the optimal solution. 14 The analysis will be extended to renters in future work. 5 Besides trading land, households can also trade both privately-issued and publicly-issued bonds. To the extent that they face a probability of death, households can also trade with financial intermediaries that annuitize the households’ wealth. A symmetric steady state-competitive equilibrium is • an allocation (c∗ , G∗ , L∗ ); • a price system (ρ∗ , p∗ ), where ρ∗ is the interest rate on government debt and p∗ is the price of land; • taxes and debt (T ∗ , B ∗ ) or (τ ∗ , B ∗ ) such that: • Households maximize their utility taking prices and government policy as given, subject to the budget constraint Bit = Bi t−1 (1 + ρ∗ ) + y − Cit − T ∗ − p∗ (Lit − Li t−1 ) (2) Bit = Bi t−1 (1 + ρ∗ ) + y − Cit − (p∗ + τ ∗ )Lit + p∗ Li t−1 (3) or and a lower bound on debt holdings −B whose only role is to rule out Ponzi schemes. • the towns’ budget constraints are satisfied, i.e., ρ∗ B ∗ + G∗ (1 − δ) = T ∗ or ¯ ρ∗ B ∗ + G∗ (1 − δ) = τ ∗ L; furthermore, the towns respect their borrowing limits and repayment schedules, i.e.,15 αB ∗ = δxG∗ . (4) ¯ • The market for land clears in each town, i.e., L∗ = L. Since all towns have the same land prices, households will always choose to locate where their idiosyncratic realization of ψijt is highest. • The market for debt clears, i.e., B ∗ is an optimal choice of assets for each household. Note that linearity implies that the actual distribution of assets in the population is indeterminate (but it is also irrelevant for what follows). 15 We assume that the deficit limit is always binding for towns. This will be the case in all of the numerical examples that we will consider, except for some cases in which Ricardian equivalence holds. When Ricardian equivalence holds, (4) is a weakly optimal choice, and (without loss of generality) we assume that this is how town debt is set. 6 Characterizing a symmetric steady-state competitive equilibrium given an exogenous level of public capital G∗ is straightforward. From the household problem, the equilibrium interest rate must be ρ∗ = (1 − β)/β. Given this interest rate, it is convenient to define the implicit land rent as rt := pt − βpt+1 , where pt is the price of land in period t. In the steady state, this is yields r ∗ = p∗ (1 − β). The demand for land by each household as a function of implicit rent is given by ˆ L(r) := arg max (w (L) − rL) , L ¯ ˆ In the case of income taxes, a symmetric steady-state equilibrium requires L = L(r ∗ ): this ¯ is a (nonlinear) equation that can be solved for r ∗ .16 Similarly, for land taxes, we obtain L = ∗ ∗ 17 ˆ L(r + τ ). Given G∗ , the budget constraint of the governments and their debt limits determine T ∗ and ∗ B . Finally, consumption is given by C ∗ = y − δG∗ . It is straightforward to verify that a symmetric steady-state competitive equilibrium is Pareto efficient, subject to the exogenously given amount of public spending. To describe a political-economic equilibrium, we need to analyze the problem faced by voters of a town that contemplates setting a policy different from that of all other towns. Accordingly, we now define a competitive equilibrium with one town deviating from the symmetric steady state. This is given by the same objects as the symmetric steady-state equilibrium (with the same equilibrium conditions), complemented by what follows. • An (exogenous) sequence {Gj0t }∞ , where Gj0 t is public capital in town j0 in period t; t=0 • A location decision as a function of the history of idiosyncratic shocks for all households for whom j0 ∈ Nit at some time t. It is straightforward to prove that the household location decision is only affected by the contemporaneous realization of the idiosyncratic shocks, since there are no wealth effects nor moving costs. We denote this choice as J(ψij0 t , ψij1 t , ...ψijN−1 t ), where (j1 , . . . , jN −1 ) are the other elements of Nit . Since all other towns behave identically and there is a continuum of them, the effect of the deviating town on their population is negligible. We thus only use the J function to characterize the population in town j0 . Accordingly, we set J(ψij0 t , ψij1 t , ...ψijN−1 t ) = j0 for a household that optimally chooses to live in j0 , and normalize J(ψij0 t , ψij1 t , ...ψijN−1 t ) = 0 if the optimal choice is to live anywhere else. • Consumption, land, and asset holdings as a function of the history of idiosyncratic shocks for all households for whom j0 ∈ Nit at some time t. Thanks again to quasilinearity of utility, all households that choose to live in the same town will choose the same land holdings, independently of the history of their idiosyncratic shocks. It thus follows that land holdings for households living in town j0 can be summarized by a sequence {Lj0 t }∞ . t=0 • a land price sequence for town j0 , {pj0 t }∞ ;18 t=0 16 Our assumptions about preferences ensure that a solution exists and is unique. Existence of a solution is now only guaranteed if τ ∗ is not too high, while uniqueness is unaffected. 18 The interest rate is an economy-wide variable and remains at ρ∗ . 17 7 • a sequence of taxes and debt in town j0 , (Tj0 t , Bj0 t ) or (τj0 t , Bj0 t ) such that: • For all households for whom j0 ∈ Nit at any time t, the location decision, consumption, asset and land holdings maximize their utility taking prices and government policy as given, subject to the budget constraints Bit = Bi t−1 (1 + ρ∗ ) + y − Cit − Tjt − pjt (Lit − Li t−1 ) or Bit = Bi t−1 (1 + ρ∗ ) + y − Cit − (pjt + τjt )Lit − pjtLi t−1 and the lower bound −B, where j is the index of the town they choose to live in period t, and pjt = p∗ , Tjt = T ∗ , τjt = τ ∗ for j = j0 . • Towns j0 ’s budget constraint and borrowing limits are satisfied, i.e., (1 + ρ∗ )Bj0 t−1 + Gj0 t = Tj0 t + (1 − δ)Gj0 t−1 + Bj0 t ¯ (1 + ρ∗ )Bj0 t−1 + Gj0 t = τj0 t L + (1 − δ)Gj0 t−1 + Bj0 t (6) Bj0 t − Bj0 t−1 (1 − α) = x(Gj0 t − Gj0 t−1 (1 − δ)). or (5) (7) and • The market for land clears in town j0 , i.e., µj 0 t ≡ ¯ L ˆ ˆ ˆ dF (ψij0 t )dF (ψ1 ) · · · dF (ψN −1 ) = Lt (ψij0 t ,ψ1 ,...,ψN−1 ):J(ψij0 t ,ψ1 ,...,ψN−1 )=j0 (8) We next characterize such an equilibrium. Consider first the case of income taxes. Given the sequence of public capital and initial debt Bj0 0 , equation (7) describes the evolution of debt, and equation (5) determines the sequence of taxes. Define w(r) := max (w (L) − rL) . ˆ L For any household for whom j0 ∈ Nit , simple algebra shows that the net benefit of living in town j0 rather in the best alternative town is given by w(rj0 t ) + v ˆ Gj 0 t µj 0 t − Tj0 t − u∗ + ψij0 t − max ψijt , j∈Nit \j0 µj 0 t where u∗ is the utility level attained in a town at the symmetric steady state, net of the private endowment and the idiosyncratic preference shock, i.e., u∗ = w(r ∗ ) + v(G∗ ) − δG∗ 1 + ˆ 8 x(1 − β) . αβ (9) Population density in j0 is thus µj 0 t = N 1 − F u∗ − w(rj0 t ) − v ˆ Gj 0 t µj 0 t + Tj0 t µj 0 t (10) ¯ ˆ From equation (8), µj0 t = L/L(rj0 t ), which we substitute into (10) to obtain an implicit function to be solved for rj0 t . We cannot prove in general that a solution to this problem exists, nor that it is unique. However, in any computed example, both existence and uniqueness are straightforward to check numerically, given G∗ . Given the implicit rent, the land price is given by ∞ β s−trj0 t . pj 0 t = s=t Finally, when ρ∗ = (1 − β)/β households are indifferent among all consumption and asset plans that satisfy their budget constraint, so the description is completed by assuming that households for whom j0 ∈ Nit at any time t follow one of these paths.19 Similar equations apply in the case of land taxes. In this case, the implicit equation to be solved for rj0 t is ¯ L ˆ L(rj0 t + τj0 t ) = N 1 − F u∗ − w(rj0 t + τj0 t ) − v ˆ ˆ Gj0 t L(rj0 t + τj0 t ) ¯ L . (11) A non-symmetric competitive equilibrium will not be Pareto efficient in general, even conditional on the exogenous levels of public goods.20 This is because, by moving, a household does not take into account the additional congestion that it causes in its destination nor the relief in the town of origin. In general, these effects cancel only in a symmetric equilibrium. 5 Political Process and Political-Economic Equilibrium We assume the following timing of events within each period t: 1. Households realize their idiosyncratic shocks, decide where to live for the period, and trade land accordingly; 19 Existence is guaranteed, since we do not impose a lower bound on consumption. Also, note that the set of households in question is of measure 0, so it is immaterial for market clearing conditions. 20 Strictly speaking, a single town deviating has no efficiency consequences, since the allocation is defined up to sets of towns of measure 0. Nonetheless, taking limits from deviations of sets of positive measure, the efficiency condition would require Gj0 t Gj0 t − v ′ (G∗ )G∗ . µj0 t = 1 − F v ′ µj0 t µ20 t j This equation balances the direct benefit/cost accruing to the marginal mover with the congestion benefits/costs at the town j0 and at any of the symmetrically-behaving towns. 9 2. Residents of each town vote over the provision of local public capital, subject to the town’s budget constraint and borrowing limit; 3. The public good is produced and taxes are levied according to the outcome of the vote. Consumption takes place.21 For the case of income taxes, we define a Markov political-economic equilibrium (MPEE) as a vector (c∗ , G∗ , L∗ , ρ∗ , p∗ , T ∗ , B ∗ ), and functions (Γ, Λ, Π) that depend on public capital and debt inherited from the previous period, such that: (i) Starting from G−1 = G, B−1 = B, define recursively Gt = Γ(Gt−1 , Bt−1 ), Lt = Λ(Gt−1 , Bt−1 ), pt = Π(Gt−1 , Bt−1 ). Set Tt and Bt to the values implied by (5) and (7). Given any value of (G, B), (c∗ , G∗ , L∗ , ρ∗ , p∗ , T ∗ , B ∗ ) and (Gt , Lt , pt , Tt , Bt )∞ , together with a suitable choice t=0 of household consumption, asset, and location decisions, must form a symmetric competitive equilibrium with one town deviating from the symmetric steady state. ¯ (ii) Γ(G∗ , B ∗ ) = G∗ , Λ(G∗ , B ∗ ) = L, and Π(G∗ , B ∗ ) = p∗ . In words, a town that starts at the symmetric steady state remains there. (iii) Start from any initial condition (G, B). Let the distribution of idiosyncratic preferences for living in the town among the residents be the one that would prevail in the competitive equilibrium described in point (i). Specifically, this means that, among residents, the cumulative distribution function of the preference z for living in the current town relative to the next best alternative is given by F (z) − F (˜) z , 1 − F (˜) z where z is defined as the solution to ˜ ¯ L = N(1 − F (˜)). z Λ(G, B) Let the current residents vote over choices of G′ . Let they assume that the resulting allocation will be a competitive equilibrium with one town deviating from the steady state, characterized by current-period taxes and debt issuance from (5) and (7), and a future allocation that satisfies Gt = Γ(Gt−1 , Bt−1 ), Lt = Λ(Gt−1 , Bt−1 ), pt = Π(Gt−1 , Bt−1 ) at all future times t. Then, Γ(G, B) is a Condorcet winner. In words, what we require is that a majority of the residents choose the policy Γ(G, B) when they expect the future response of the economy to be described by the same functions that represent the current choices. While in principle this vote could take place starting from an arbitrary population density and distribution of tastes, we only need to check optimality for the density and the distribution of tastes that stem from an optimal location choice by households that (correctly) anticipate that the policy Γ(G, B) will be implemented. 21 Debt can be traded both at stages 1 and 3. 10 In the case of property taxes, the definition is identical, except that τ ∗ replaces T ∗ and (6) replaces (5). In deciding which policy they prefer, households have to anticipate whether the policy will lead them to move to a different jurisdiction next period or to stay put (assuming that they are not hit by the exogenous mobility shock). It is straightforward to see that two households i and j will have the same ranking over the set of policies that lead both of them to remain, and also over the set of policies that lead both of them to leave. Conflict will only emerge for policies that lead one of them to stay and the other to leave, or between choosing a policy that would lead both of them to stay and another one that would lead both of them to leave. At the steady state, all households will remain put until hit by the exogenous shock. By continuity, around the steady state, stayers will remain a majority of the population, and we can characterize the equilibrium by looking at the first-order conditions for their preferred policy (assuming a differentiable equilibrium). Once we have characterized the equilibrium in such a neighborhood, we could then expand the search to regions where the pivotal voter might be moving, and check robustness to policies that might lead more than 50% of the population to decide to move out. Notice, however, that this case is relevant theoretically, but cannot be relevant empirically. We will typically consider a period to be a budget cycle (a year), and such a rapid population drop is implausible (except perhaps for tiny villages). Let W (G, B) be the value that a household expects to attain in the future by living in a community that has state variables described by G and B, net of the cost of acquiring the land and of the idiosyncratic location shock. Consider a household that anticipates to stay in the same location with probability θ and that lives in a town characterized by an initial population µ,22 inherited capital (before depreciation) G, and debt B. Such a household will prefer a policy that solves the following problem: max v ′ G G′ µ +w ¯ L µ − (α + (1 − β)/β)B + (1 − x)(G′ − (1 − δ)G) + µ ¯ L β Π(G′ , B ′ ) + βθW (G′, B ′ ) + β(1 − θ)W (G∗ , B ∗ ), µ (12) where B ′ := (1 − α)B + x(G′ − (1 − δ)G). (13) Equation (12) illustrates the trade-offs faced by a household in choosing G′ . First, the choice has a contemporaneous effect on current utility and taxes. Since all households face the same costs and benefits along this dimension, this component does not involve any externalities. Looking to the following period, the household is affected by the current choice in two ways: • To the extent that higher G′ and/or lower B are reflected into future land prices, the household realizes a capital gain on the land that it has purchased. ¯ We assume that the household owns L/µ units of land. We could further generalize the description to nodes in which households picked different land holdings. However, this complication is irrelevant for the same reasons that will lead us to drop µ as a separate state variable. 22 11 • The current choice of G affects future levels of spending and taxes; to the extent that the household anticipates remaining in the town, it will take these considerations into account. These will be reflected in the value W (G′ , B ′ ). Note that part of the change in W will undo the benefits of the capital gains above: in order to remain in the town, the household needs to forgo realizing part of those capital gains, to retain land where to live. ˆ The solution to (12) yields a function Γ(G, B, µ): it would thus appear that the population size should appear as a state variable. However, in their location decision, households correctly ˆ anticipate the policy that will be undertaken. Substituting the resulting value Γ into (10) or (11), we see that in equilibrium the resulting population level will only depend on G and B inherited from the past.23 Furthermore, while it would be easy to compute ex post, characterizing an equilibrium can be done without keeping track of the choices that would be made in a node in which (10) or (11) do not hold.24 In the case of income taxes, the first-order conditions of the policy preferred by a household that anticipates to remain in town with probability θ are thus given by the solution to the following system of four functional equations: 1. Value function, along the equilibrium path: Γ(G, B)Λ(G, B) + w (Λ(G, B)) − ¯ L Λ(G, B) [(α + (1 − β)/β) B + (1 − x) (Γ(G, B) − (1 − δ)G)] + ¯ L βΠ (Γ(G, B), B ′ ) Λ(G, B) + βθW (Γ(G, B), B ′) + β(1 − θ)W (G∗ , B ∗ ); W (G, B) = − Π(G, B)Λ(G, B) + v (14) 2. First-order condition for the policy preferred by a household that anticipates to stay: 0= Λ(G, B) ′ v ¯ L Γ(G, B)Λ(G, B) ¯ L ′ − (1 − x) + (15) ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ β ΠG (Γ(G, B), B ) + xΠB (Γ(G, B), B ) Λ(G, B) + βθ WG (G , B ) + xWB (G , B ) ; 3. Market clearing for land: ¯ L = N 1 − F u∗ − w L−1 (Λ(G, B)) − v ˆ ˆ Λ(G, B) Γ(G, B)Λ(G, B) + ¯ L Λ(G, B) [(α + (1 − β)/β)B + (1 − x)(Γ(G, B) − (1 − δ)G)] ; ¯ L 4. Land price: ˆ Π(G, B) = L−1 (Λ(G, B)) + βΠ (Γ(G, B), B ′) . 23 (16) (17) Of course, if the resulting equation does not have a solution, then an equilibrium does not exist. Conversely, if multiple solutions can be found, then we have multiple equilibria. 24 For a more comprehensive explanation of this point, see Chari and Kehoe [6]. However, notice that keeping track of such nodes is essential when uniqueness of an equilibrium is an issue; see Bassetto [3]. 12 In equations (14)-(17), we used for brevity the definitions of u∗ and B ′ of (9) and (13), with G′ = Γ(G, B). In the case of land taxes, equations (14) and (15) remain unchanged, but equations (16) and (17) are replaced by ¯ L = N 1 − F u∗ − w L−1 (Λ(G, B)) − v ˆ ˆ Λ(G, B) Γ(G, B)Λ(G, B) ¯ L (18) and 1 ˆ Π(G, B) = L−1 (Λ(G, B))− ¯ L α+ 1−β β B + (1 − x)(Γ(G, B) − (1 − δ)G) +βΠ(Γ(G, B), B ′). (19) 6 The Power and Limits of Land Taxes It is straightforward to verify that, in the case of land taxes, we obtain the following simple solution: Γ(G, B) = Geff (20) ¯ Λ(G, B) = L, Π(G, B) = ˆ ¯ ¯ B L−1 (L) − δGeff /L (1 − δ)(G − Geff ) + − ¯, ¯ 1−β L βL W (G, B) = ¯ v(Geff ) + w(L) − δGeff ¯ B∗ − LΠ(Geff , B ∗ ) − , 1−β β and where Geff is the efficient level of public capital defined in equation (1) and B ∗ = xδGeff /α. Land taxes induce an efficient provision of the public good in all periods. This is because future land prices fully reflect future taxes and debt: the current voter thus internalizes the effects of her choices on future residents of the town. This result follows Schultz and Sj¨str¨m [19] and Conley o o 25 and Rangel [7]. With capitalization of amenities and debt into future land prices, the degree of endogenous or exogenous mobility becomes irrelevant: the solution is independent of F and θ. The solution is also independent of x and α, since Ricardian equivalence holds: if the current voter leaves bigger debt to future generations, she will fetch a correspondingly lower price upon selling her land. Land taxes would thus appear a promising source of revenue to provide appropriate incentives for public investment. 25 In Schultz and Sj¨str¨m land taxes are not sufficient to restore efficiency, since the determination of the public o o good occurs before moving decisions, and the current benefits of the public good are not fully priced into land. Conley and Rangel distinguish between public goods that generate fiscal vs. direct intergenerational spillovers. Our paper focuses only on goods that generate fiscal spillovers: future generations can make up for the lack of past investment by increasing their own investment, with the only cost of additional taxes. 13 In order for land taxes to reap such efficiency gains, it is very important that they only hit land, a factor on fixed net supply that enjoys pure rents. Hence, the tax does not resemble property taxes as currently assessed by most localities in the United States: those taxes apply both to land and to structures. It also is different from a tax on land values, which (in a richer model with nonuniform land) would distort the incentives to aggregate into cities.26 For quantitative analysis, land taxes are limited by the value of the land. As an example, the average value of farm real estate per acre in Illinois in 2007 was $4,330.27 Assuming a discount factor of 4%, and even assuming that this was the value of the marginal plot of land, Illinois would be able to raise less than 1.5% of Gross State Product in pure land taxes before driving to 0 the value of the marginal plot. Any increases beyond that point would generate distortions, since they would lead residents to abandon tracts of land.28 We conclude thus that, while appealing, land taxes alone are not likely to generate enough revenues to sustain sufficient government investment. 7 Some Numerical Examples about Income Taxes We will develop a full quantitative assessment of income taxes in future versions of this work. We consider here two numerical examples that illustrate the consequences of endogenous and exogenous mobility on the efficiency of the allocation chosen by voters. In the first example, we focus on the role of endogenous mobility by assuming that the ˆ distribution F is degenerate on 0. In this case, a symmetric equilibrium requires households to be indifferent on where to live among the N towns that are available to them. Substituting (16) and (17) into (14), it follows that W (G, B) is independent of (G, B): since households have no particular attachment to a specific town, they care about the provision of the public good and taxes in that town only to the extent that they affect the price of land that they own. For this reason, the degree of exogenous mobility becomes irrelevant. ¯ We set the following parameter values: β = 0.96, δ = 0.03, L = 1, v(G) ≡ G−2 /2, w(L) ≡ 1−σ L /(1 − σ). We consider the case in which the town is not allowed to borrow to pay for capital expenses, i.e., x = 0, and look at the resulting equilibrium distortion (at the symmetric steady state). As in Bassetto with Sargent [5], we measure distortions as a wedge between the marginal utility of public capital under the efficient allocation and under the equilibrium one: wedge = v ′ (G∗ ) − v ′ (Geff ) v ′ (Geff ) We choose this metric because it is more likely to be robust to departures from the assumption of quasilinear preferences.29 A positive (negative) wedge means that public capital is underprovided 26 However, Wallis and Weingast [23] point out that a tax on land value may actually be beneficial for incentives when the benefit of the public good does not accrue uniformly within the jurisdiction: when capitalization reflects the differences in benefits, owners of land that receives the most benefits will pay a larger share of the costs. 27 Source: USDA web site. I thank David Oppedahl for pointing me to this information. 28 It is also likely that this figure is close to the top of the Laffer curve for such a tax: once the tax led people to abandon farmland, the amount of land in use and available for taxes would shrink dramatically. 29 See the appendix of Bassetto with Sargent [5] for further discussion. 14 (overprovided). The degree to which the voting outcome is inefficient depends on two forces:30 • Congestion: when a town has higher public capital than others, it becomes a more desirable location. This drives more households to live there, and the resulting congestion dilutes the benefits of the additional investment undertaken in the past. • Capitalization: the newly arriving households bid up the price of land, which rewards the previous residents (as owners of land) for the investment undertaken. 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Elasticity of demand for land Figure 1: Efficiency wedge (%) with degenerate F Whether congestion or capitalization will be more prevalent depends on whether equilibrium is achieved mostly by varying quantity or price. With a fixed supply, this is in turn driven by the elasticity of the demand for land (1/σ), which is thus the key parameter of interest. As figure 1 shows, for the case of degenerate F inefficiency is likely to be very large under a pure balanced budget, unless the demand for land is extremely inelastic. In the limit, as σ → +∞, efficiency is restored, since only a fixed number of households can live in the town, and the benefits of public investment are thus fully factored into land prices. In our second example, we consider the opposite polar extreme: we now assume that N = 1, so that households have no location choice. In this case, it is Π that is independent of (G, B): the price of land will be determined by the demand of the households that are captive to each town, and the demand is unrelated to the provision of public goods.31 In equation (15), all longterm benefits that are internalized by the voters must now come from W . The key parameter is thus no longer σ, which is irrelevant, but θ, the probability that a household will remain in 30 31 For further discussion of these forces, see e.g. Stiglitz [20] and Schultz and Sj¨str¨m [19]. o o Of course, this relies on the assumption that preferences are strongly separable in the public good and land. 15 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.8 0.85 0.9 θ 0.95 1 Figure 2: Efficiency wedge (%) with N = 1 the same town. Results are shown in figure 2, where we retain the same parameter values and functional forms as above. When θ ≈ 1 the town looks like a closed economy with infinitelylived households, and Ricardian equivalence holds; as figure 2 shows, this leads to efficiency. In contrast, the higher the probability that a household will move out of town (or die), the bigger the distortion generated by the fact that it neglects benefits accruing to future immigrants. 8 Conclusion This paper has developed a framework to analyze the relevance of endogenous and exogenous mobility on the incentives that local communities face in providing efficient levels of public investment. The preliminary numerical examples presented here suggest the following conclusions: • Land taxes (purely based on acreage owned by each taxpayer) deliver efficient incentives, but land per se is not valuable enough to fully support the needs of government investment. • When households move in response to public amenities and debt, the adverse effect of congestion is likely to be as important as the beneficial incentive effect of capitalization. When taxes are primarily levied on income, relying on capitalization alone does not seem thus a good substitute for explicit rules that encourage investment at the local level, such as the golden rule. In future research, we will calibrate the model to fully assess the quantitative relevance of the distortions introduced by different budget rules. We will also incorporate investment in structures, to consider the effect of property taxes that hit both land and capital. 16 References [1] Marina Azzimonti. On the Dynamic Inefficiency of Governments. Mimeo, University of Rochester, 2004. [2] Marina Azzimonti, Marco Battaglini, and Stephen Coate. On the Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Mimeo, Princeton University, 2008. [3] Marco Bassetto. Equilibrium and Government Commitment. Journal of Economic Theory, 124(1):79–105, 2005. [4] Marco Bassetto with Thomas J. Sargent. Politics and Efficiency of Separating Capital and Ordinary Government Budgets. NBER Working Paper, 11030, 2005. [5] Marco Bassetto with Thomas J. Sargent. Politics and Efficiency of Separating Capital and Ordinary Government Budgets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4):1167–1210, 2006. [6] V. V. Chari and Patrick J. Kehoe. Sustainable Plans. Journal of Political Economy, 98(4):783–801, 1990. [7] John P. Conley and Antonio Rangel. Intergenerational Fiscal Constitutions: How to Protect Future Generations Using Land Taxes and Federalism. NBER Working Paper, 8394, 2001. [8] Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti. The Macroeconomics of Child Labor Regulation. American Economic Review, 95(5):1492–1524, 2005. [9] Jonah B. Gelbach. Migration, the Life Cycle, and State Benefits: How Low Is the Bottom? Journal of Political Economy, 112(5):1091–1130, 2004. [10] John Hassler, Per Krusell, Kjetil Storesletten, and Fabrizio Zilibotti. The Dynamics of Government. Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(7):1331–1358, 2005. [11] John Hassler, Jos´ V. Rodr´ e ıgues Mora, Kjetil Storesletten, and Fabrizio Zilibotti. The Survival of the Welfare State. American Economic Review, 93(1):87–112, 2003. [12] Boyan Jovanovic and Robert W. Rosenthal. Anonymous Sequential Games. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 17(1):77–87, 1988. [13] Kenneth L. Judd. The Law of Large Numbers With a Continuum of IID Random Variables. Journal of Economic Theory, 35:19–25, 1985. [14] Paul Klein, Per Krusell, and Jos´-V´ e ıctor R´ ıos-Rull. Time Consistent Public Policy. Review of Economic Studies, 75(3):789–808, 2008. [15] Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Robert W. Rosenthal. Some Inefficiency Implications of Generational Politics and Exchange. Economics and Politics, 5(1):27–42, 1993. 17 [16] Bruce D. Meyer. Do the Poor Move to Receive Higher Welfare Benefits? Joint Center for Poverty Research Working Paper, 58, 2000. Northwestern University/ University of Chicago. [17] Peter Mieszkowski and George R. Zodrow. Taxation and the Tiebout Model: The Differential Effects of Head Taxes, Taxes on Land Rents, and Property Taxes. Journal of Economic Literature, 27(3):1098–1146, 1989. [18] Rowan Miranda, Ronald Picur, and Doug Stanley. Elements of a Comprehensive Local Government Debt Policy. Government Finance Review, 13(5):9–14, 1997. [19] Christian Schultz and Tomas Sj¨str¨m. Local Public Goods, Debt and Migration. Journal o o of Public Economics, 80(2):313–337, 2001. [20] Joseph E. Stiglitz. The Theory of Local Public Goods Twenty-Five Years After Tiebout: A Perspective. In George R. Zodrow, editor, Local Provision of Public Services: The Tiebout Model after Twenty-Five Years, pages 17–53. Academic Press, 1983. [21] Charles M. Tiebout. A Pure Theory of Local Public Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5):416–424, 1956. [22] Harald Uhlig. A Law of Large Numbers for Large Economies. Economic Theory, 8(1):41–50, 1996. [23] John Joseph Wallis and Barry Weingast. Equilibrium Impotence: Why the States and Not the American National Government Financed Infrastructure Investment in the AnteBellum Era. NBER Working Paper, 11397, 2005. [24] David E. Wildasin and John Douglas Wilson. Imperfect Mobility and Local Government Behaviour in an Overlapping-Generations model. Journal of Public Economics, 60(2):177– 198, 1996. 18 Working Paper Series A series of research studies on regional economic issues relating to the Seventh Federal Reserve District, and on financial and economic topics. Firm-Specific Capital, Nominal Rigidities and the Business Cycle David Altig, Lawrence J. Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum and Jesper Linde WP-05-01 Do Returns to Schooling Differ by Race and Ethnicity? Lisa Barrow and Cecilia Elena Rouse WP-05-02 Derivatives and Systemic Risk: Netting, Collateral, and Closeout Robert R. Bliss and George G. Kaufman WP-05-03 Risk Overhang and Loan Portfolio Decisions Robert DeYoung, Anne Gron and Andrew Winton WP-05-04 Characterizations in a random record model with a non-identically distributed initial record Gadi Barlevy and H. N. Nagaraja WP-05-05 Price discovery in a market under stress: the U.S. Treasury market in fall 1998 Craig H. Furfine and Eli M. Remolona WP-05-06 Politics and Efficiency of Separating Capital and Ordinary Government Budgets Marco Bassetto with Thomas J. Sargent WP-05-07 Rigid Prices: Evidence from U.S. Scanner Data Jeffrey R. Campbell and Benjamin Eden WP-05-08 Entrepreneurship, Frictions, and Wealth Marco Cagetti and Mariacristina De Nardi WP-05-09 Wealth inequality: data and models Marco Cagetti and Mariacristina De Nardi WP-05-10 What Determines Bilateral Trade Flows? Marianne Baxter and Michael A. Kouparitsas WP-05-11 Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the U.S., 1940 to 2000 Daniel Aaronson and Bhashkar Mazumder WP-05-12 Differential Mortality, Uncertain Medical Expenses, and the Saving of Elderly Singles Mariacristina De Nardi, Eric French, and John Bailey Jones WP-05-13 Fixed Term Employment Contracts in an Equilibrium Search Model Fernando Alvarez and Marcelo Veracierto WP-05-14 1 Working Paper Series (continued) Causality, Causality, Causality: The View of Education Inputs and Outputs from Economics Lisa Barrow and Cecilia Elena Rouse WP-05-15 Competition in Large Markets Jeffrey R. Campbell WP-05-16 Why Do Firms Go Public? Evidence from the Banking Industry Richard J. Rosen, Scott B. Smart and Chad J. Zutter WP-05-17 Clustering of Auto Supplier Plants in the U.S.: GMM Spatial Logit for Large Samples Thomas Klier and Daniel P. McMillen WP-05-18 Why are Immigrants’ Incarceration Rates So Low? Evidence on Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation Kristin F. Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl WP-05-19 Constructing the Chicago Fed Income Based Economic Index – Consumer Price Index: Inflation Experiences by Demographic Group: 1983-2005 Leslie McGranahan and Anna Paulson WP-05-20 Universal Access, Cost Recovery, and Payment Services Sujit Chakravorti, Jeffery W. Gunther, and Robert R. Moore WP-05-21 Supplier Switching and Outsourcing Yukako Ono and Victor Stango WP-05-22 Do Enclaves Matter in Immigrants’ Self-Employment Decision? Maude Toussaint-Comeau WP-05-23 The Changing Pattern of Wage Growth for Low Skilled Workers Eric French, Bhashkar Mazumder and Christopher Taber WP-05-24 U.S. Corporate and Bank Insolvency Regimes: An Economic Comparison and Evaluation Robert R. Bliss and George G. Kaufman WP-06-01 Redistribution, Taxes, and the Median Voter Marco Bassetto and Jess Benhabib WP-06-02 Identification of Search Models with Initial Condition Problems Gadi Barlevy and H. N. Nagaraja WP-06-03 Tax Riots Marco Bassetto and Christopher Phelan WP-06-04 The Tradeoff between Mortgage Prepayments and Tax-Deferred Retirement Savings Gene Amromin, Jennifer Huang,and Clemens Sialm WP-06-05 2 Working Paper Series (continued) Why are safeguards needed in a trade agreement? Meredith A. Crowley WP-06-06 Taxation, Entrepreneurship, and Wealth Marco Cagetti and Mariacristina De Nardi WP-06-07 A New Social Compact: How University Engagement Can Fuel Innovation Laura Melle, Larry Isaak, and Richard Mattoon WP-06-08 Mergers and Risk Craig H. Furfine and Richard J. Rosen WP-06-09 Two Flaws in Business Cycle Accounting Lawrence J. Christiano and Joshua M. Davis WP-06-10 Do Consumers Choose the Right Credit Contracts? Sumit Agarwal, Souphala Chomsisengphet, Chunlin Liu, and Nicholas S. Souleles WP-06-11 Chronicles of a Deflation Unforetold François R. Velde WP-06-12 Female Offenders Use of Social Welfare Programs Before and After Jail and Prison: Does Prison Cause Welfare Dependency? Kristin F. Butcher and Robert J. LaLonde Eat or Be Eaten: A Theory of Mergers and Firm Size Gary Gorton, Matthias Kahl, and Richard Rosen Do Bonds Span Volatility Risk in the U.S. Treasury Market? A Specification Test for Affine Term Structure Models Torben G. Andersen and Luca Benzoni WP-06-13 WP-06-14 WP-06-15 Transforming Payment Choices by Doubling Fees on the Illinois Tollway Gene Amromin, Carrie Jankowski, and Richard D. Porter WP-06-16 How Did the 2003 Dividend Tax Cut Affect Stock Prices? Gene Amromin, Paul Harrison, and Steven Sharpe WP-06-17 Will Writing and Bequest Motives: Early 20th Century Irish Evidence Leslie McGranahan WP-06-18 How Professional Forecasters View Shocks to GDP Spencer D. Krane WP-06-19 Evolving Agglomeration in the U.S. auto supplier industry Thomas Klier and Daniel P. McMillen WP-06-20 3 Working Paper Series (continued) Mortality, Mass-Layoffs, and Career Outcomes: An Analysis using Administrative Data Daniel Sullivan and Till von Wachter The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Tying One’s Hand through the WTO. Meredith A. Crowley WP-06-21 WP-06-22 How Did Schooling Laws Improve Long-Term Health and Lower Mortality? Bhashkar Mazumder WP-06-23 Manufacturing Plants’ Use of Temporary Workers: An Analysis Using Census Micro Data Yukako Ono and Daniel Sullivan WP-06-24 What Can We Learn about Financial Access from U.S. Immigrants? Una Okonkwo Osili and Anna Paulson WP-06-25 Bank Imputed Interest Rates: Unbiased Estimates of Offered Rates? Evren Ors and Tara Rice WP-06-26 Welfare Implications of the Transition to High Household Debt Jeffrey R. Campbell and Zvi Hercowitz WP-06-27 Last-In First-Out Oligopoly Dynamics Jaap H. Abbring and Jeffrey R. Campbell WP-06-28 Oligopoly Dynamics with Barriers to Entry Jaap H. Abbring and Jeffrey R. Campbell WP-06-29 Risk Taking and the Quality of Informal Insurance: Gambling and Remittances in Thailand Douglas L. Miller and Anna L. Paulson WP-07-01 Fast Micro and Slow Macro: Can Aggregation Explain the Persistence of Inflation? Filippo Altissimo, Benoît Mojon, and Paolo Zaffaroni WP-07-02 Assessing a Decade of Interstate Bank Branching Christian Johnson and Tara Rice WP-07-03 Debit Card and Cash Usage: A Cross-Country Analysis Gene Amromin and Sujit Chakravorti WP-07-04 The Age of Reason: Financial Decisions Over the Lifecycle Sumit Agarwal, John C. Driscoll, Xavier Gabaix, and David Laibson WP-07-05 Information Acquisition in Financial Markets: a Correction Gadi Barlevy and Pietro Veronesi WP-07-06 Monetary Policy, Output Composition and the Great Moderation Benoît Mojon WP-07-07 4 Working Paper Series (continued) Estate Taxation, Entrepreneurship, and Wealth Marco Cagetti and Mariacristina De Nardi WP-07-08 Conflict of Interest and Certification in the U.S. IPO Market Luca Benzoni and Carola Schenone WP-07-09 The Reaction of Consumer Spending and Debt to Tax Rebates – Evidence from Consumer Credit Data Sumit Agarwal, Chunlin Liu, and Nicholas S. Souleles WP-07-10 Portfolio Choice over the Life-Cycle when the Stock and Labor Markets are Cointegrated Luca Benzoni, Pierre Collin-Dufresne, and Robert S. Goldstein WP-07-11 Nonparametric Analysis of Intergenerational Income Mobility with Application to the United States Debopam Bhattacharya and Bhashkar Mazumder WP-07-12 How the Credit Channel Works: Differentiating the Bank Lending Channel and the Balance Sheet Channel Lamont K. Black and Richard J. Rosen WP-07-13 Labor Market Transitions and Self-Employment Ellen R. Rissman WP-07-14 First-Time Home Buyers and Residential Investment Volatility Jonas D.M. Fisher and Martin Gervais WP-07-15 Establishments Dynamics and Matching Frictions in Classical Competitive Equilibrium Marcelo Veracierto WP-07-16 Technology’s Edge: The Educational Benefits of Computer-Aided Instruction Lisa Barrow, Lisa Markman, and Cecilia Elena Rouse WP-07-17 The Widow’s Offering: Inheritance, Family Structure, and the Charitable Gifts of Women Leslie McGranahan WP-07-18 Demand Volatility and the Lag between the Growth of Temporary and Permanent Employment Sainan Jin, Yukako Ono, and Qinghua Zhang WP-07-19 A Conversation with 590 Nascent Entrepreneurs Jeffrey R. Campbell and Mariacristina De Nardi WP-07-20 Cyclical Dumping and US Antidumping Protection: 1980-2001 Meredith A. Crowley WP-07-21 The Effects of Maternal Fasting During Ramadan on Birth and Adult Outcomes Douglas Almond and Bhashkar Mazumder WP-07-22 5 Working Paper Series (continued) The Consumption Response to Minimum Wage Increases Daniel Aaronson, Sumit Agarwal, and Eric French WP-07-23 The Impact of Mexican Immigrants on U.S. Wage Structure Maude Toussaint-Comeau WP-07-24 A Leverage-based Model of Speculative Bubbles Gadi Barlevy WP-08-01 Displacement, Asymmetric Information and Heterogeneous Human Capital Luojia Hu and Christopher Taber WP-08-02 BankCaR (Bank Capital-at-Risk): A credit risk model for US commercial bank charge-offs Jon Frye and Eduard Pelz WP-08-03 Bank Lending, Financing Constraints and SME Investment Santiago Carbó-Valverde, Francisco Rodríguez-Fernández, and Gregory F. Udell WP-08-04 Global Inflation Matteo Ciccarelli and Benoît Mojon WP-08-05 Scale and the Origins of Structural Change Francisco J. Buera and Joseph P. Kaboski WP-08-06 Inventories, Lumpy Trade, and Large Devaluations George Alessandria, Joseph P. Kaboski, and Virgiliu Midrigan WP-08-07 School Vouchers and Student Achievement: Recent Evidence, Remaining Questions Cecilia Elena Rouse and Lisa Barrow WP-08-08 Does It Pay to Read Your Junk Mail? Evidence of the Effect of Advertising on Home Equity Credit Choices Sumit Agarwal and Brent W. Ambrose WP-08-09 The Choice between Arm’s-Length and Relationship Debt: Evidence from eLoans Sumit Agarwal and Robert Hauswald WP-08-10 Consumer Choice and Merchant Acceptance of Payment Media Wilko Bolt and Sujit Chakravorti WP-08-11 Investment Shocks and Business Cycles Alejandro Justiniano, Giorgio E. Primiceri, and Andrea Tambalotti WP-08-12 New Vehicle Characteristics and the Cost of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard Thomas Klier and Joshua Linn WP-08-13 6 Working Paper Series (continued) Realized Volatility Torben G. Andersen and Luca Benzoni WP-08-14 Revenue Bubbles and Structural Deficits: What’s a state to do? Richard Mattoon and Leslie McGranahan WP-08-15 The role of lenders in the home price boom Richard J. Rosen WP-08-16 Bank Crises and Investor Confidence Una Okonkwo Osili and Anna Paulson WP-08-17 Life Expectancy and Old Age Savings Mariacristina De Nardi, Eric French, and John Bailey Jones WP-08-18 Remittance Behavior among New U.S. Immigrants Katherine Meckel WP-08-19 Birth Cohort and the Black-White Achievement Gap: The Role of Health Soon After Birth Kenneth Y. Chay, Jonathan Guryan, and Bhashkar Mazumder WP-08-20 Public Investment and Budget Rules for State vs. Local Governments Marco Bassetto WP-08-21 7