Pulation development Population Age structure Population density Wealth Estimation strategy Observations Rsquared Quantity of boroughs. [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa. Current revenue. [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] LSDVb Capital earnings. [.]. [.] . [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa. Capital revenue. [.]. [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] PubMed ID:http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/175/1/69 LSDVb Rate earnings. [.] . [.] . [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa c. Rate earnings. [.] . [.] . [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] LSDVb c Deficit . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.] Fixed effectsa. Deficit. [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.] LSDVb Note: All fiscal variables are expressed in real Pounds per capita. a Robust zstatistics clustered at the borough level in brackets; borough fixed effects incorporated. b Bias corrected LSDV dymic panel information estimator suggested by Bruno (a,b). c Sample from to. p b p b p b on the public finces with the LMBs but was not itself accountable for the difference within the ture of your political budget cycle before and following the extension from the franchise. Heterogeneous Tubastatin-A web Election year effects The baseline final results concern the average election year effect across the LMBs in the two samples. This could mask essential heterogeneity. To investigate this, we’ve got reestimated the baseline specificationwith a set of boroughspecific election year dummy variables. The results are summarized in Tables and which report the JNJ-42165279 chemical information coefficient around the election year dummy for every single borough for the two samples. We observe some heterogeneity as 1 would expect, but there is absolutely no indication that the typical benefits are driven by one particular or two outliers. Table, with all the benefits in the taxpayer suffrage, is sorted in accordance with the size on the electorate (franchise extension). While the point estimates on the vast majority of boroughspecific election year effects within the existing revenue and tax revenue regressions are damaging andTable Estimation results for expenditure outcomes for the universal suffrage sample Variables Present expenditure Lagged dep. var. Election Population growth Population Age structure Population density Debt Wealth Estimation process Observations Rsquared Quantity of boroughs. [.] . [.] . 
[.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa. Present expenditure. [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] LSDVb Capital expenditure. [.]. [.] . [.] .e [.]. [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa. Capital expenditure. [.]. [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] LSDVb Administration. [.]. [.] .e [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa c. Administration. [.]. [.] . [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] LSDVb cNote: All fiscal variables are expressed in real Pounds per capita. a Robust zstatistics clustered in the borough level in brackets; borough fixed effects incorporated. b Bias corrected LSDV dymic panel information estimator suggested by Bruno (a,b). c Sample from to. p b p b p b T.S. Aidt, G. Mooney Jourl of Public Economics Table Robustness checks for the taxpayer suffrage sample Variables Present revenue Panel A Election Left . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] Fixed effectsa Capital earnings . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa Rate revenue . [.]. [.] . [.] . [.] Fixed effectsa Deficit. [.] . [.]. [.] . [.] Fixed effectsa Current expenditure . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa Capital expenditure . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa Administration . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] Fixed effectsa Panel B Election Absent owners Estimation technique Observations Variety of boroughsNote: All fiscal varia.Pulation growth Population Age structure Population density Wealth Estimation method Observations Rsquared Quantity of boroughs. [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa. Existing revenue. [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] LSDVb Capital earnings. [.]. [.] . [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa. Capital revenue. [.]. [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] PubMed ID:http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/175/1/69 LSDVb Price revenue. [.] . [.] . [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa c. Rate income. [.] . [.] . [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] LSDVb c Deficit . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.] Fixed effectsa. Deficit. [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.] LSDVb Note: All fiscal variables are expressed in true Pounds per capita. a Robust zstatistics clustered at the borough level in brackets; borough fixed effects incorporated. b Bias corrected LSDV dymic panel information estimator suggested by Bruno (a,b). c Sample from to. p b p b p b around the public finces of your LMBs but was not itself responsible for the distinction in the ture from the political budget cycle ahead of and after the extension on the franchise. Heterogeneous election year effects The baseline final results concern the average election year effect across the LMBs within the two samples. This may mask crucial heterogeneity. To investigate this, we have reestimated the baseline specificationwith a set of boroughspecific election year dummy variables. The outcomes are summarized in Tables and which report the coefficient around the election year dummy for every borough for the two samples. We observe some heterogeneity as one particular would expect, but there is absolutely no indication that the average results are driven by 1 or two outliers. Table, with the outcomes from the taxpayer suffrage, is sorted based on the size on the electorate (franchise extension). Though the point estimates on the vast majority of boroughspecific election year effects within the present earnings and tax income regressions are adverse andTable Estimation outcomes for expenditure outcomes for the universal suffrage sample Variables Present expenditure Lagged dep. var. Election Population growth Population Age structure Population density Debt Wealth Estimation technique Observations Rsquared Quantity of boroughs. [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa. Existing expenditure. [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] LSDVb Capital expenditure. [.]. [.] . [.] .e [.]. [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa. Capital expenditure. [.]. [.] . [.] . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] LSDVb Administration. [.]. [.] .e [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa c. Administration. [.]. [.] . [.] .e [.] . [.] . [.]. [.]. [.] LSDVb cNote: All fiscal variables are expressed in actual Pounds per capita. a Robust zstatistics clustered at the borough level in brackets; borough fixed effects included. b Bias corrected LSDV dymic panel data estimator suggested by Bruno (a,b). c Sample from to. p b p b p b T.S. Aidt, G. Mooney Jourl of Public Economics Table Robustness checks for the taxpayer suffrage sample Variables Current revenue Panel A Election Left . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] Fixed effectsa Capital income . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa Rate earnings . [.]. [.] . [.] . [.] 
Fixed effectsa Deficit. [.] . [.]. [.] . [.] Fixed effectsa Current expenditure . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa Capital expenditure . [.]. [.] . [.]. [.] Fixed effectsa Administration . [.] . [.] . [.] . [.] Fixed effectsa Panel B Election Absent owners Estimation process Observations Number of boroughsNote: All fiscal varia.