Effect of constraints on Tiebout competition: evidence from a school finance reform

REFERENCES

• Arsen, D., Plank, D. N., & Sykes, G. (2001). A work in progress. Education Next 1, 14–19.
   Google Scholar
• Card, D., & Payne, A. A. (2002). School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics 83, 49–82. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00177-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakrabarti, R. (2013). Impact of voucher design on public school performance: Evidence from Florida and Milwaukee Voucher Programs. B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy: Contributions 13, 349–394. doi: 10.1515/bejeap-2012-0037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakrabarti, R., & Roy, J. (2015). Housing markets and residential segregation: Impacts of the Michigan school finance reform on inter- and intra-district sorting. Journal of Public Economics 122, 110–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakrabarti, R., & Sutherland, S. (2013). Precarious slopes? The Great Recession, federal stimulus, and New Jersey schools. Economic Policy Review 19, 41–65.
   Google Scholar
• Chaudhary, L. (2009). Education inputs, student performance and school finance reform in Michigan. Economics of Education Review 28, 90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corcoran, S. P., & Evans, W. N. (2007). Equity, adequacy and the evolving state role in education finance. In H. F. Ladd, & E. B. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 332–356). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, J., & Loeb, S. (2004). School finance reform in Michigan: Evaluating proposal A. In J. Yinger (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp. 215–250). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Downes, T. A., & Schoeman, D. (1998). School financing reform and private school enrollment: Evidence from California. Journal of Urban Economics 43, 418–443. doi:10.1006/juec.1997.2053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dye, R., & McGuire, T. (1997). The effect of property tax limitation measures on local government fiscal behavior. Journal of Public Economics 66, 469–487. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(97)00047-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreyra, M. M. (2009). An empirical framework for large-scale policy analysis, with an application to school finance reform in Michigan. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 1, 147–180. doi:10.1257/pol.1.1.147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figlio, D. N. (1997). Did the ‘tax revolt' reduce school performance? Journal of Public Economics 65, 245–269. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(97)00015-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figlio, D. N. (1998). Short-term effects of a 1990s-era tax limit: Panel evidence on Oregon's Measure 5. National Tax Journal 51, 55–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller, B., Marsh, J., Stecher, B., & Timar, T. (2011). Deregulating school aid in California: How 10 districts responded to fiscal flexibility, 2009–2010. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Glazer, L., & Grimes, D. (2004). A new path to prosperity? Manufacturing and knowledge based industries as drivers of economic growth. Ann Arbor: Michigan Future Inc. and University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Hoxby, C. M. (2001). All school finance equalizations are not created equal. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, 1189–1231. doi:10.1162/003355301753265552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, S. E., Evans, W. N., Schwab, R. M. (1998). Education finance reform and the distribution of education resources. American Economic Review 88, 789–812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papke, L. (2005). The effects of spending on test pass rates: Evidence from Michigan. Journal of Public Economics 89, 821–839. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, J. (2011). Impact of school finance reform on resource equalization and academic performance: Evidence from Michigan. Education Finance and Policy 6, 137–167. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, A. B. (1992). Private school enrollment in metropolitan areas. Public Finance Review 20, 298–320. doi:10.1177/109114219202000302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonstelie, J. (1979). Public school quality and private school enrollments. National Tax Journal 32, 343–353.
   Google Scholar
• Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E., & Ardon, K. (2000). For better or worse: School finance reform in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Education. (2009). Guidance: Funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/title-i.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Webber, D. A., & Ehrenberg, R.G. (2010). Do expenditures other than instructional expenditures affect graduation and persistence rates in American higher education? Economics of Education Review 29, 947–958. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welsch, D. (2011). Charter school competition and its impact on employment spending in Michigan's public schools. Contemporary Economic Policy 29, 323–336. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2010.00241.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar