Abstract
An economic experiment with endogenous institutions informs the political economy of land value taxation relative to uniform property taxation in terms of efficiency and sprawl reduction. Heterogeneous type distributions were used so that land value taxation was earnings-rational, relative to uniform property taxation, for 40, 60, and 80 percent of the participants. The model’s induced values predict land value taxation leads to less sprawl, more earnings, and more tax revenue than uniform property taxation. Experimental data do not consistently match this prediction, where both tax institutions led to more sprawl and lower earnings than predicted. Results show participants voted for the tax institution that does not maximize their individual earnings in 16.7 percent of rounds. These earnings-irrational choices occurred when the type distributions were 40 and 60 percent in favor of land value taxation. The experiment results nonetheless show the absolute advantage of land value taxation for producing less sprawl, more tax revenue, and more earnings. Moreover, the behavioral evidence suggests that relative advantage of land value taxation in reducing sprawl is greater than predicted by the model. This suggests further inquiry about whether land value taxation promotion activities may best be targeted towards cities using uniform property taxation where economies are vibrant, land uses are already relatively intensive, and greater-than-average population density already exists.
Highlights
If majority voting was allowed and all participants voted with earningsrationality, all rounds in TypeDistA would be in the uniform property taxation (UPT) cell and all rounds in TypeDistB and TypeDistC would be in the LVT cells
6 of 7 observed LVT rounds for TypeDistA were mandated for LVT; 6 of 10 UPT rounds for TypeDistB and 6 of 6 UPT rounds for TypeDistC were mandated for UPT—all against the types’ earnings-rational tax
The experiment results on spatial impacts collectively show that LVT leads to less sprawl than does UPT, matching the model prediction
Summary
Many researchers believe the land tax (LVT) is superior to and more efficient than uniform property taxation (UPT), in part, because it promotes a distortionless, more-intensive use of land (Pollock & Shoup, 1977; DiMasi, 1987; Plassmann & Tideman, 2000; England & Ravichandran, 2010; Banzhaf & Lavery, 2010; Chapman et al, 2009; Choi & Sjoquist, 2015; Gemmell et al, 2019) without regressivity (Bowman & Bell, 2008; Choi & Sjoquist, 2015; Plummer, 2010) or with correctible levels of regressivity (England & Zhao, 2005). DiMasi (1987) used a general equilibrium model to show that a version of LVT increases improvements per unit of land and population density. Banzhaf and Lavery (2010) offered strong, empirical evidence that a version of the land tax reduces sprawl because it increases housing units but not housing size. Choi & Sjoquist, 2015 vs Song & Zenou, 2006) may be because different metrics are being confounded; LVT has an improvement effect, a density effect, and a dwelling-size effect ( see England et al, 2013 for a study of these effects with varying property tax). The literature suggests that moving from UPT to LVT will reduce sprawl and increase the intensity with which land is used (Brueckner & Kim, 2003; Choi & Sjoquist, 2015)
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have