A Flexible Design for Funding Public Goods

References

• Ackerman B, Ayres I (2002) Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Alesina A, Spolaore E (1997) On the number and size of nations. Quart. J. Econom. 107(4):1027–1056.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atkinson AB, Stiglitz JE (1976) The design of tax structure: Direct versus indirect taxation. J. Public Econom. 6(1–2):55–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benkler Y (2007) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Bergstrom T (1979a) Do governments spend too much? National Tax J. 32(2):81–86.Google Scholar
• Bergstrom T (1979b) When does majority rule supply public goods efficiently? Scandinavian J. Econom. 81(2):216–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bergstrom T, Blume L, Varian H (1986) On the private provision of public goods. J. Public Econom. 29(1):25–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowen HR (1943) The interpretation of voting in the allocation of economic resources. Quart. J. Econom. 58(1):27–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clarke EH (1971) Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice 11(1):17–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dybvig PH, Spatt CS (1983) Adoption externalities as public goods. J. Public Econom. 20(2):231–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Easterly W (2007) The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Eguia JX, Xefteris D (2018) Implementation by vote-buying mechanisms. Working paper, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
• Falkinger J (1996) Efficient private provision of public goods by rewarding deviations from average. J. Public Econom. 62(3):413–422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foer F (2017) World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech (Penguin, New York).Google Scholar
• Giriharadas A (2018) Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World (A. Knopf, New York).Google Scholar
• Green J, Laffont J-J (1977) Characterization of satisfactory mechanisms for the revelation of preferences for public goods. Econometrica 45(2):427–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green J, Laffont J-J (1979) On coalition incentive compatibility. Rev. Econom. Stud. 46(2):243–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groves T (1973) Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41(4):617–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groves T, Ledyard J (1977) Optimal allocation of public goods: A solution to the “free rider” problem. Econometrica 45(4):783–809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey D (2009) Social Justice and the City, rev. ed. (University of Georgia Press, Athens).Google Scholar
• Hasen RL (2016) Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Hylland A, Zeckhauser R (1979) The efficient allocation of individuals to positions. J. Political Econom. 87(2):293–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobs J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Random House, New York).Google Scholar
• Kant I (1993) Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. James Ellington (Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis). [1st ed. 1785.]Google Scholar
• Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J. Political Econom. 99(3):483–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lalley SP, Weyl EG (2018) Nash equilibria for quadratic voting. Working paper, Microsoft Research, New York.Google Scholar
• Lessig L (2011) Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It (Twelve, New York).Google Scholar
• Madison J (1787) The Federalist No. 10: The utility of the Union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection. Daily Advertiser, November 22.Google Scholar
• Mailath GJ, Postlewaite A (1990) Asymmetric information bargaining problems with many agents. Rev. Econom. Stud. 57(3):351–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olson M (1965) The Logic of Collective Action (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ostrom E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Posner EA, Weyl EG (2017) Introduction. Special issue: Quadratic voting and the public good. Public Choice 172(1/2):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ramsey FP (1927) A contribution to the theory of taxation. Econom. J. (London) 37(145):47–61.Google Scholar
• Reich R (2018) Just Giving: Why Philanthropy is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts RD (1992) Government subsidies to private spending on public goods. Public Choice 74(2):133–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roemer JE (2010) Kantian equilibrium. Scandinavian J. Econom. 112(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romer PM (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J. Political Econom. 94(5):1002–1037.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothkopf MH (2007) Thirteen reasons why the Vickrey-Clarke-Groves process is not practical. Oper. Res. 55(2):191–197.Link, Google Scholar
• Samuelson PA (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev. Econom. Statist. 36(4):387–389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith VL (1980) Experiments with a decentralized mechanism for public good decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 70(4):584–599.Google Scholar
• Tabarrok A (1998) The private provision of public goods via dominant assurance contracts. Public Choice 96(1–2):345–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vickrey W (1961) Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. J. Finance 16(1):8–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weyl EG (2012) Quadratic vote buying. Working paper, Microsoft Research, New York.Google Scholar