On the dangers of decentralization

The author highlights some of the dangers of decentralizations. The benefits of decentralization in allocative efficiency are not as obvious as suggested by the standard theory of fiscal federalism. The assumptions of this theory are fragile. These doubtful benefits might carry a cost in production efficiency, but more empirical research is needed on this point. What is not doubtful is that decentralization runs counter to redistribution and stabilization. Decentralization makes redistributive policies, whether interpersonal or interjurisdictional, more difficult, if not impossible. Decentralization also makes macroeconomic stabilization programs more difficult to implement because subnational government fiscal policies can run counter to national policies. Serious drawbacks or potential drawbacks should be considered in designing any decentralization program. The arguments that the author develops make it easier to understand some of the real choices. These choices are not so much whether to decentralize in general but rather what functions to decentralize - in which sectors, and in which regions. Guidelines can be provided on this. Often, the problem is not so much whether a certain service should be provided by a central, regional, or local government, since the service often has to be provided with the intervention of all three levels of government. The real challenge is how to organize the joint production of the service. Decentralization refers simultaneously to a state and to a process. The virtues and dangers of decentralization are often discussed simultaneously for both concepts. This is a dangerous confusion because decentralization is path-dependent. What is desirable in a given country at a certain point in time depends on the present state of decentralization and the speed at which it has been reached. Much more work, particularly empirical work, is needed -- in review of decentralization (or centralization) experiences in general, as well as those encouraged or supported by the World Bank.National Governance,Banks&Banking Reform,Municipal Financial Management,Economic Theory&Research,Pharmaceuticals&Pharmacoeconomics

The Economic Structure of Detroit: Two Sets of Metropolitan Accounts

Citations of sources, conclusions, or opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author and do not reflect the policies or views of staff or others affiliated with the Institute for Policy Studies or Johns Hopkins University

The Economic Structure of Detroit: Two Sets of Metropolitan Accounts

Citations of sources, conclusions, or opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author and do not reflect the policies or views of staff or others affiliated with the Institute for Policy Studies or Johns Hopkins University

Le coût économique de la congestion du périphérique parisien : une approche désagrégée

The cost of congestion on a given road at a given time is defined as the difference between the effective utility of the road and the utility that would prevail if the road were utilized optimally. It is the opportunity cost of not having an optimal congestion reduction policy. This cost is estimated on the case of the Paris ring road, the most travelled highway in Europe, for the use of which detailed data is available. A speed-density relationship specific to this road is estimated. It is used to calculate the optimal situation, class of speed (and of density and flow) by class of speed. The required road usage reduction appears relatively constant. Congestion costs are calculated, always class of speed by class of speed. The aggregation of these costs produces a total annual congestion costs of about 0.6 billion francs (about 0.1 billion Euros). This cost represents about 5% of the utility generated by the ring road usage.Le coût de la congestion est défini comme la différence entre l’utilité effectivement engendrée et l’utilité qui serait engendrée si le périphérique était utilisé d’une façon optimale. Il est ce que nous perdons à ne pas avoir une politique de réduction optimale de la congestion. Ce coût est estimé sur le cas du périphérique parisien, la voie la plus importante d’Europe, pour l’utilisation duquel on dispose de données très détaillées. La relation densité-vitesse propre au périphérique est d’abord estimée. Elle est utilisée pour calculer, classe de vitesse (et densité et flux) par classe de vitesse, la situation optimale. La réduction de trafic nécessaire à cet effet apparaît relativement constante. On en déduit, toujours classe de vitesse par classe de vitesse, le coût de congestion. L’agrégation de ces coûts fait apparaître un coût annuel d’environ 0,6 milliard de francs. Ce coût ne représente guère que 5 % de l’utilité associée à l’usage du périphérique

De l'environnement

SIGLECNRS-CDST / INIST-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et TechniqueFRFranc

Trois essais sur la congestion et son cout

SIGLEAvailable from INIST (FR), Document Supply Service, under shelf-number : RL 184 (1); RL 184 (2) / INIST-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et TechniqueMinistere de l'Equipement, des Transports et du Logement (METL), 92 - Puteaux (France). Service Economique et Statistique (SES)FRFranc

Le role des metropoles dans les redistributions spatiales induites par les budgets des etats -quatre etudes de cas-

Available at INIST (FR), Document Supply Service, under shelf-number : AR 15311 / INIST-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et TechniqueSIGLEFRFranc