Abstract
It is nearly universally presumed that redistribution can be carried out effectively only at the national or even global level, because local redistribution will be negated through personal mobility: recipients will move to high-paying jurisdictions while taxpayers will move away from those jurisdictions. To avoid this situation requires redistribution to be concentrated at national and not at local levels. In contrast to this standard line of argument, we explore how redistribution might be carried out more effectively at local levels than at the national level. To explain this reversal from standard analytical implications, we integrate three concepts that are not present in the standard analysis. These concepts are the Samaritan’s dilemma, co-production, and polycentricity. It is interaction among these three concepts that reverses the implications of the standard analysis of redistribution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This figure does not include spending social insurance programs (Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Compensation), since these are targeted toward a broader population.
- 2.
This figure comes from the regularly-updated “Public Welfare Expenditures” page from the Urban Institute, part of the “State and Local Backgrounders” project.
- 3.
This is an important point to highlight. Polycentricity and administrative decentralization are not synonymous, nor are monocentricity and administrative centralization. It is where the locus of decision-making power lies that distinguishes a monocentric from a polycentric order. Any particular polycentric system might also be administratively centralized if the optimum scale of service provision requires this type of administrative centralization. An organization like Catholic Charities might be thought to be administratively centralized, but still exist in a polycentric order of charitable service providers. Likewise, the network of local governments across any particular state might be considered administratively decentralized, but many will act as monocentric service providers within their jurisdiction.
- 4.
As Olasky (1992) documents, the late 1800s saw the rise in social work as a profession, in contrast to what is now described as social work being a volunteer activity or even a calling.
- 5.
While it is probably more accurate to declare that accidents are jointly caused than to describe them co-produced, the avoidance of accidents is a matter of co-production all the same.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Originally, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program was called the Aid to Dependent Children program. The name was changed in 1962 to reflect the changed focus of the program.
- 9.
The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act allowed states to apply to the DHHS for an exemption from the AFDC rules in order to conduct pilot programs. However, these waivers were not widely used until the late 1980s.
References
Buchanan, J. M. (1977). The Samaritan’s Dilemma. In E. Phelps (Ed.), Altruism, Morality, and Economic Theory (pp. 71–86). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Coalition for Evidence Based Policy. (2014). Top-Tier Evidence Initiative: Evidence for the Nurse-Family Partnership. Available at http://evidencebasedprograms.org/1366-2/nurse-family-partnership.
Dunston, R., Lee, A., Boud, D., Brodie, P., & Chiarella, M. (2009). Co-Production and Health System Reform—From Re-Imagining to Re-Making. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 39–52.
Eberstadt, N. (2015). American Exceptionalism and the Entitlement State. National Affairs, 22. Available at http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/american-exceptionalism-and-the-entitlement-state.
Fawcett, H. (1871). Pauperism: Its Causes and Remedies, by Henry Fawcett. New York: Macmillan Publishers.
Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gibson, C. C., Andersson, K., Ostrom, E., & Shivakumar, S. (2005). The Samaritan’s Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goodman, A. (2006). The Story of David Olds and the Nurse Home Visiting Program. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Grants Results Special Report.
Hayek, F. A. (1976). Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2: The Mirage of Social Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Himmelfarb, G. (1991). Poverty and Compassion: The Moral Imagination of the Late Victorians. New York: Knopf.
Hochman, H. M., & Rogers, J. D. (1969). Pareto Optimal Redistribution. The American Economic Review, 59(4), 542–557.
Lave, C. A. (1985). Speeding, Coordination, and the 55-MPH Limit. American Economic Review, 75, 1159–1164.
Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Olasky, M. (1992). The Tragedy of American Compassion. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.
Ostrom, E., Parks, R. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Percy, S. L. (1978). The Public Service Production Process: A Framework for Analyzing Police Services. Policy Studies Journal, 7(s1), 381–389.
Peltzman, S. (1975). The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation. Journal of Political Economy, 83, 677–726.
Rector, R., & Sheffield, R. (2011). Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America’s Poor. Heritage Foundation Backgrounder on Poverty and Inequality No. 2607.
Rosen, H. S., & Gayer, T. (2008). Public Finance, 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shavell, S. (1987). Economic Analysis of Accident Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spar, K., & Falk, G. (2016, July 29). Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: Overview of Spending Trends, FY2008-FY2015 (Congressional Research Service Report No. 7-5700). Available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44574.pdf.
Tanner, M., & Hughes, C. (2013, August). The Work Versus Welfare Tradeoff: 2013. Cato Institute White Paper. Available at http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade.
Tanner, M., & Hughes, C. (2014, October). War on Poverty Turns 50: Are We Winning Yet? (Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 761). Available at http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/war-poverty-turns-50-are-we-winning.-yet.
Wagner, R. E. (2010). Raising vs. Leveling in the Social Organization of Welfare. Review of Law & Economics, 6(3), 421–439.
Winship, S. (2014, October 2014). Inequality Does Not Reduce Prosperity: A Compilation of the Evidence Across Countries (e21 Report No. 1). Available at https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/inequality-does-not-reduce-prosperity.-compilation-evidence-across-countries-6032.html#.VFDPb_nF-Sr.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tuszynski, M.P., Wagner, R.E. (2018). Samaritan’s Dilemmas, Wealth Redistribution, and Polycentricity. In: Wagner, R. (eds) James M. Buchanan. Remaking Economics: Eminent Post-War Economists. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03080-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03080-3_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03079-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03080-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)