Inequality and Education Funding: Theory and Evidence from the U.S. School Districts

We investigate the relationship between inequality and education funding in a model of probabilistic voting over public education spending where the private option is available. A change in inequality can have opposite effects at different income levels: higher inequality decreases public spending per student and increases enrollment in public schools in poor economies, while the opposite holds in the rich ones. A change in the tax base can also have non-monotonic e¤ects. We also study the implications of different voting participation across income groups. The predictions of the model are supported by U.S. school district-level data.

Inequality, Opting-out and Public Education Funding

We investigate the relationship between inequality and political support for public education funding in a model of endogenous fertility and school choice. Household income heterogeneity is consistent with the skewness of empirical income distributions. Inequality can drive education spending in opposite directions in poor and rich economies. A mean preserving spread increases tax rates and public school enrollment, but decreases public spending per student in low income economies, while it has opposite effects at high income levels. An increase in the average income level can also have non-monotonic effects

Growth Effects of Spatial Redistribution Policies

Regional income disparities have increased in many European countries recently, even as national and supra-national policy instruments were created to correct them. To explain these evolutions, we develop a two-region, two-sector model with migration and public investment in infrastructure and education. Accumulation and creation of new ideas and technologies as well as migration are at the core of differential regional growth. In this framework, we assess the effectiveness of structural funds, modelled on the EU policy. In a numerical example calibrated to Portugal, we find that, to diminish the initial gap in income per capita, the backward region needs to receive over 8% of its own GDP in structural funds, while the actual disbursements were around 4%. We also find that maximizing innovation in the backward region conflicts in the short run with the goal of maximizing its income per capita. Moreover, the rich region has an incentive to bias the allocation of structural funds towards human capital formation.two-region economy, structural change, migration, regional policy, European Union

Public Budget Composition, Fiscal(De)Centralization, and Welfare

We present a dynamic two-region model with overlapping generations. There are two types of public expenditure, education and infrastructure funding, and governments decide optimally on budget size (tax rate) and its allocation across the two outlays. Productivity of government infrastructure spending can differ across regions. This assumption follows well established empirical evidence, and highlights regional heterogeneity in a previously unexplored dimension. We study the implications of three different fiscal regimes for capital accumulation and aggregate national welfare. Full centralization of revenue and expenditure decisions is the optimal fiscal arrangement for the country when infrastructure spending productivity is similar across regions. When regional differences exist but are not too large, the partial centralization regime is optimal where the federal government sets a common tax rate, but allows the regional governments to decide on the budget composition. Only when the differences are sufficiently large does full decentralization become the optimal regime. National steady state output is instead highest when the economy is decentralized. This result is consistent with the “Oates conjecture” that fiscal decentralization increases capital accumulation. However, in terms of welfare this result can be reversed.fiscal federalism, capital accumulation, infrastructure, public education

Growth Effects of Spatial Redistribution Policies

We develop a two-region, two sector model with migration and public investment in infrastructure and education. In a numerical example calibrated to Portugal, we find that the structural funds can improve the growth rate of the lagging region and slightly reduce the regional inequality, without necessarily producing convergence. When the mix of national public investment departs from optimum, the allocation of supra-national funds across infrastructure and public education can partially offset this national sub-optimality. We also find that the short-run growth-maximizing mix is different from the long-run mix. Moreover, the rich region has an incentive to bias the allocation of structural funds towards human capital formation

Growth effects of spatial redistribution policies

Regional income disparities have increased in many European countries recently, even as national and supra-national policy instruments were created to correct them. To explain these evolutions, we develop a two-region, two-sector model with migration and public investment in infrastructure and education. Accumulation and creation of new ideas and technologies as well as migration are at the core of differential regional growth. In this framework, we assess the effectiveness of structural funds, modelled on the EU policy. In a numerical example calibrated to Portugal, we find that, to diminish the initial gap in income per capita, the backward region needs to receive over 8% of its own GDP in structural funds, while the actual disbursements were around 4%. We also find that maximizing innovation in the backward region conflicts in the short run with the goal of maximizing its income per capita. Moreover, the rich region has an incentive to bias the allocation of structural funds towards human capital formation

Growth Effects of Spatial Redistribution Policies

We develop a two-region, two sector model with migration and public investment in infrastructure and education. In a numerical example calibrated to Portugal, we find that the structural funds can improve the growth rate of the lagging region and slightly reduce the regional inequality, without necessarily producing convergence. When the mix of national public investment departs from optimum, the allocation of supra-national funds across infrastructure and public education can partially offset this national sub-optimality. We also find that the short-run growth-maximizing mix is different from the long-run mix. Moreover, the rich region has an incentive to bias the allocation of structural funds towards human capital formation.endogenous growth, spatial redistribution, regional policy, European Union

Public Budget Composition, Fiscal(De)Centralization, and Welfare

We present a dynamic two-region model with overlapping generations. There are two types of public expenditure, education and infrastructure funding, and governments decide optimally on budget size (tax rate) and its allocation across the two outlays. Productivity of government infrastructure spending can differ across regions. This assumption follows well established empirical evidence, and highlights regional heterogeneity in a previously unexplored dimension. We study the implications of three different fiscal regimes for capital accumulation and aggregate national welfare. Full centralization of revenue and expenditure decisions is the optimal fiscal arrangement for the country when infrastructure spending productivity is similar across regions. When regional differences exist but are not too large, the partial centralization regime is optimal where the federal government sets a common tax rate, but allows the regional governments to decide on the budget composition. Only when the differences are sufficiently large does full decentralization become the optimal regime. National steady state output is instead highest when the economy is decentralized. This result is consistent with the “Oates conjecture” that fiscal decentralization increases capital accumulation. However, in terms of welfare this result can be reversed

Dynamic fiscal competition: a political economy theory

I develop a political economy theory of dynamic fiscal competition via public spending and debt. With internationally mobile capital, strategic policies generate two cross-border externalities that voters in each country fail to internalize: (1) an increase in public spending that bolsters capital accumulation but also (2) a race to the top in public debt which crowds out capital. The relative size of these two externalities varies with the number of financially integrated countries and interacts with the domestic political conflict between young and old voters. Despite residence based taxation, capital tax rates are lower under strategic policies than under coordination. Furthermore, they may decline with financial integration. Strategic policies lead to lower long run output and welfare relative to coordination but are preferred by subse-quent generations of voters if the number of financially integrated countries is low or the political weight of the young is high

Public versus private investment and growth in a hierarchical education system

The paper studies the interaction between public and private spending in a two-stage education framework (K-12 and tertiary education) and their effects on economic growth. We find that an increase in the overall education public spending crowds out the total level of private contributions and increases the share of resources that households devote to K-12 education. For a given public budget, a higher share of K-12 public funding induces higher private education spending overall, of which a larger share goes towards higher education. The model broadly matches data on education finance in the OECD countries. The calibrated parameter values suggest that at both stages public and private inputs are good yet imperfect substitutes, with a higher degree of complementarity in basic education. We show that the growth maximizing share of public spending devoted to K-12 should be high, irrespective of the size of the public budget. Using the calibrated model to compare the structure of education funding in the EU and the US, we find that, to maximize growth, high tax countries should use more of their public resources in tertiary education relative to low tax countries. This suggests that US efforts to improve K-12 education and the reform of higher education in Europe are consistent with the objective of increased economic growth.Basic and advanced education Private spending Public education policies Balanced growth