| OCR Text |
Show 16 government with relatively limited migration possibilities" (Brennan and Hamlin 1998, p. 147). However, factor mobility, the largest theoretical constraint redistribution activities, may not be while the empirical potential studies broadly for monetary Hamlin 1998, p. 147), serious in indicate that gains, much so as so fully informed citizens 'voting reality as are theory factor flows interregional such flows the assumption with their feet' of in response to enables governments in the Tiebout framework to known inducing of fails in poor countries" significant, or because religious pp. (Bardhan 2002, "jurisdictional than 188). Second, in their democracy can respective jurisdictions bureaucrats. have supenor and are thus and overcome public the well public goods largely mobility may be linguistic, cultural, ethnic, (Brennan 54). In particular, more and Hamlin local however, "presume are Ravallion real, 1998). Thus, as a preferences for world in which captured locally" (Burki has been shown as a of the level of motivated to tackle poverty the risk that local elites will capture local pro-poor programs is Mookherjee 2000; knowledge Through decentralization, works well, and in which all externalities thereby undermine and for differential barriers to salient (Brennan by and hence reduce the benefits that the mobility redistribution will be accommodated. These, p. on influenced 266-267). centrally appointed 1999, preferences of the economic account of federalism offers" Moreover, local governments inequality p. boundaries based divides tend to inhibit mobility dimensions 2000, citizens to reveal their are population mobility performance-that problem subnational presumes. First, small usually relatively that "the crucial on et al. decision-making and empirically (Bardhan World Bank report puts it: "Local |
