Supermajority Voting Requirements for Tax Increases: Evidence from the States

By Brian G. Knight. 2000

163 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Does Direct Democracy Reduce the Size of Government? New Evidence from Historical Data, 1890-2000 (2011, background): “5 We also contribute to a small, but growing literature that uses instrumental variables to address institutional endogeneity at the subnational level (Rueben, 1997; Knight, 2000).”
The Robust Relationship between Taxes and U.S. State Income Growth (2008, background): “…far the most commonly employed measure of state taxation, and can be thought of as the “effective average tax rate” in a state (e.g., Helms, 1985; Mofi di and Stone, 1990; Mullen and Williams, 1994; Carroll and Wasylenko, 1994; Knight, 2000; Caplan, 2001; Yamarik, 2000, 2004; Alm and Rogers, 2005).”
Voting on Majority Rules (2004, background): “25 These states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and Washington; This account is based on Knight (2000).”
State Higher Education Spending and the Tax Revolt (2006, background): “Rueben (1997) and Knight (2000) dealt with this problem by creating an instrument for the TEL or SMR.”