The Distributional Impact of Greater Responsiveness: Evidence from New York Towns

Abstract

Making leaders more responsive to voters is a frequent goal of institutional reforms in democracies. Given that some citizens participate more in politics than others, however, there is a risk that increased responsiveness may conflict with another democratic value: the equality of policy outcomes. This article studies this trade-off using institutional reforms in New York towns, where officials known as assessors are charged with ensuring equitable treatment in property taxation. Over time, hundreds of towns reduced responsiveness by making their assessors appointed instead of elected. The local context thus allows for more precise measurement of who gets what from government, as well as more credible estimates of the effects of institutions. Results show that local policy decisions are biased against low-income residents and that elections serve only to compound this bias.