International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 114–139 | Cite as

The stimulative effects of intergovernmental grants and the marginal cost of public funds



This paper tests the hypothesis that the stimulative effects of intergovernmental grants increase with the marginal cost of public funds of the recipient government. We present a simple theoretical framework that shows how a lump-sum transfer stimulates the marginal expenditures of a recipient government through an income effect and a price effect. We then test the prediction of this model using Canadian provincial data and exploit the discontinuity in the equalization grants allocation formula to identify the effects of grants. Our results indicate that the stimulative effects of lump-sum grants on spending increase with the provincial government’s marginal cost of public funds (MCF). One policy implication of our results is that higher intergovernmental transfers may be welfare improving if the federal government has a lower MCF than the provinces.


Intergovernmental grants Marginal cost of public funds Flypaper effect Fiscal federalism 

JEL Classification

H71 H72 H77 



We would like to thank the two anonymous referees of the journal for their valuable comments and suggestions. This paper also benefited from comments and suggestions of participants at the 46th Canadian Economics Association meetings in Calgary and CESifo area conference on Public Sector Economics in Munich. All remaining errors are our own.


  1. Acosta, P. (2010). The “flypaper effect” in presence of spatial interdependence: Evidence from Argentinean municipalities. Annals of Regional Science, 44, 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist, J. D., & Lavy, V. (1999). Using Maimonides’ rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 533–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aragon, F. (2011). Local spending, transfers and costly tax collection. Working paper, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M., Payne, A., & Smart, M. (1999). An empirical study of matching grants: The ‘CAP on the CAP’. Journal of Public Economics, 72, 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G. S., & Mulligan, C. B. (2003). Deadweight costs and the size of government. Journal of Law and Economics, 46, 293–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besley, T., & Case, A. (1995). Incumbent behavior: Vote seeking, tax-setting, and yardstick competition. American Eonomic Review, 85, 25–45.Google Scholar
  7. Brooks, L., Phillips, J., & Sinitsyn, M. (2011). The cabals of a few or the confusion of a multitude: The institutional trade-off between representation and governance. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3, 1–24.Google Scholar
  8. Buettner, T., & Fabritz, N., (2014). Does the spending effects of grants vary with jurisdiction size? Working paper.Google Scholar
  9. Case, A., Rosen, H., & Hines, J. (1993). Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: Evidence from the states. Journal of Public Economics, 52, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courant, P. N., Gramlich, E. M., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1979). The stimulative effects of intergovernmental grants: Or why money sticks where it hits. In P. Mieszkowski & W. H. Oakland (Eds.), Fiscal federalism and grant-in-aid. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Dahlberg, M., Mork, E., Rattso, J., & Agren, H. (2008). Using a discontinuous grant rule to identify the effect of grants on local taxes and spending. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 2320–2335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahlby, B. (2008). The marginal cost of public funds: Theory and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlby, B. (2011). The marginal cost of public funds and the flypaper effect. International Tax and Public Finance, 18, 304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahlby, B., & Ferede, E. (2012). The effects of tax rate changes on tax bases and the marginal cost of public funds for provincial governments. International Tax and Public Finance, 19, 844–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dollery, B., & Worthington, A. (1999). Fiscal illusion at the local level: An empirical test using Australian municipal data. Economic Record, 75, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuller, W. A. (1977). Some properties of a modification of the limited information maximum likelihood estimator. Econometrica, 45, 939–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gamkhar, S., & Oates, W. (1996). Asymmetries in the response to increases and decreases in intergovernmental grants: Some empirical findings. National Tax Journal, 49, 501–512.Google Scholar
  18. Gamkhar, S., & Shah, A. (2007). The impact of intergovernmental transfers: A synthesis of the conceptual and empirical literature. In R. Boadway & A. Shah (Eds.), Intergovernmental fiscal transfers: Principles and practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, N. (2004). Do federal grants boost school spending? Evidence from Title I. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1771–1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hahn, J., Hausman, J., & Kuersteiner, G. (2004). Estimation with weak instruments: Accuracy of higher-order bias and MSE approximations. Econometrics Journal, 7, 272–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton, J. (1986). The flypaper effect and the deadweight loss from taxation. Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 148–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hines, J., & Thaler, R. (1995). The flypaper effect. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inman, R. (2008). The flypaper effect. NBER working paper No.14579.Google Scholar
  24. Kneebone, R., & McKenzie, K. (2001). Electoral and partisan cycles in fiscal policy: An examination of canadian provinces. International Tax and Public Finance, 8, 753–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight, B. (2002). Endogenous federal grants and crowd-out of state government spending: Theory and evidence from the federal highway aid program. American Economic Review, 92, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leduc, S., & Wilson, D. (2014). Are state governments roadblocks to federal stimulus? Evidence from highway grants in the 2009 recovery act. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2013–2016.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, Y., & Gordon, R. (2005). Tax structure and economic growth. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1027–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Logan, R. (1986). Fiscal illusion and the grantor government. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1304–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lutz, B. (2010). Taxation with representation: Intergovernmental grants in a plebiscite democracy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 316–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oates, W. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1120–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roemer, J., & Silvestre, J. (2002). The ‘flypaper effect’ is not an anomaly. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 4, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singhal, M. (2008). Special interest groups and the allocation of public funds. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 548–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Ch. 5. In J. H. Stock & D. W. K. Andrews (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas J. Rothenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Urquiola, M., & Verhoogen, E. (2009). Class-size caps, sorting, and the regression-discontinuity design. American Economic Review, 99, 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Klaauw, W. (2002). Estimating the effect of financial aid offers on college enrollment: A regression-discontinuity approach. International Economic Review, 43, 1249–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Végh, C. A., & Vuletin, G. (2010). Unsticking the flypaper effect using distortionary taxation, working paper, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  37. Volden, C. (2007). Intergovernmental grants: A formal model of interrelated national and subnational political decisions. Publius: Journal of Federalism, 37, 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Winer, S. (1983). Some evidence on the effect of the separation of spending and taxing decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 91, 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of Public Policy and Department of EconomicsUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsMacEwan UniversityEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations