The Tiebout Model Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

The Tiebout Model - Essay Example The main finding included the fact that inter-jurisdictional competition is a vital element of the mechanism. The key players in Tiebout’s model are individual citizens and governments. business firms are not an explicit part of the model (Brueckner 2004, p 138). It was meant to be applied to local governments and to a lesser degree, to state governments. The model assumes citizens have full knowledge of government revenue and expenditure packages, that there are a large number of communities among which individuals can choose to live, and that people will opt for the community that best satisfies their preferences. Moreover, the model assumes that government services exhibit no spillover effects (Billings 2008, p 45). Tiebout’s model made three additional assumptions; one, that jobs impose no locational constraint on individuals; two, that a community’s optimal size, meaning the size for which the average cost of producing a particular packages of public service s is minimized, can be determined; and three, that each community seeks to attain its optimal size (Feiock 2004, p. 76). The model envisions citizens sorting themselves out among available communities so that demands for government services within any particular community would become homogenous. In theory, Tiebout concluded that to the extent these rather restrictive assumptions are met, good and services provided by the local public sector will exhibit both allocative efficiency (the right amounts of the various good and services are produced ) and productive efficiency (they are produced at least cost) (Rivkin 2001, p. 206). In Tiebout’s model, community taxes would be benefit taxes, or proportional to the benefits citizens receive form public services, rather than taxes based on the ability to pay. Tiebout’s model implies that any redistribution of income is taken care of by the federal government (Rivkin 2001, p. 207). Despite all the pros of the Tiebout model, va rious changes in the finance systems of local governments over the last three decades, such as fiscal centralization, work against the establishment of Tiebout effects. This uniformity is undesirable and future reforms should target to encourage a greater diversity of service provision. Competition among local governments, cities and municipalities, as depicted in Tiebout’s model, most at times serve to improve efficiency and delivery of service and goods to the citizens. Based on Tiebout’s model, where there is competition, citizens will come together to take care of all types of demands for public goods and service (Widmer & Zweifel 2008, p. 5). Moreover, individuals will relocate to communities that best meets their demand for public goods and services and the productivity is improved and more efficient since shady and/ ineffective providers of public services and goods will not get any clients. Tiebout model has all the benefits of a competitive market (Feiock 2004 , p. 97). According to Tiebout, it is clear that decentralization of provision of public goods and services results in a positive influence on performance. The rationale is that citizens will procure from the providers who give them the best quotient between public service and tax paid. In a study on fiscal equalization, where disparities among local