Fiscal descentralization and the quality of government: evidence from panel data

In this paper we focus on the relationship between fiscal decentralization and government quality. In a sample of 29 developing and developed countries over the period 1984-1997, fiscal decentralization has a positive effect on institutional quality but this effect diminishes as countries become wealthier. Moreover, the positive effect of fiscal decentralization on government quality is reduced by electoral and decision-making decentralization in poor and medium income countries whereas these forms of decentralization seem to improve the impact of fiscal decentralization on government quality in rich countries.Quality of government, fiscal decentralization, political decentralization, panel data

Measuring Fiscal Decentralization in the Philippines

This paper focuses on the fiscal decentralization in the Philippines after the 1991 Local Government Code. It first examines the intergovernmental fiscal relationship between central and local governments by using fiscal decentralization indicators, and then investigates its impact on local finance. After fiscal decentralization, the local expenditure responsibility is expanded while the local fiscal capacity is not strengthened in the Philippines. Local governments consequently comes to depend heavily on fiscal transfers from the central government, internal revenue allotments (IRAs), which has a substantial influence on local finance. The heavy dependence on IRAs makes local finance unpredictable and unstable. The distribution of IRAs also affects the horizontal balance between provincial governments.Fiscal Decentralization, Fiscal Decentralization Indicators, Horizontal Balance, The Philippines, Philippines, Decentralization, Local Finance

"Fiscal Decentralization, Commitment and Regional Inequality: Evidence from State-level Cross-sectional Data for the United States"

While conventional approaches to fiscal decentralization suggest that decentralization lowers the power of redistribution among regions, recent theories argue that fiscal decentralization works as a commitment device. In this manner, where the budget in a given region is highly dependent on transfers from the central government, there is an incentive for effort following fiscal decentralization. The former effect is argued to increase regional inequality, while the latter suggests a decrease in regional inequality. However no known empirical work has directly examined the relationship between fiscal decentralization and regional inequality. In this paper, cross-sectional data for the United States, excluding the convergence of regional income, are used to derive the net relationship. It is also the case that the direction of this effect on regional inequality depends on how fiscal decentralization is promoted. While the former distribution effect directly depends on the central government's share of power, the latter incentive effect depends on autonomy. Two measures that represent the power of the central government and autonomy are used to identify these effects. The results indicate that local expenditure or revenue share in fiscal decentralization has no significant effect on regional inequality, while the achievement of autonomy by fiscal decentralization has a negative effect on regional inequality. This supports the theory that fiscal decentralization works as a commitment device. The results also show that how fiscal decentralization is promoted is important for how it impacts on regional inequality.

Public Sector Decentralization: Measurement Concepts and Recent International Trends

This paper deals with the problems encountered in defining and measuring the degree of fiscal decentralization. Drawing on a recent analytical framework of the OECD, different measures of fiscal autonomy and revenue decentralization are presented which consider tax-raising powers of sub-central governments. Taking account of changes in the assignment of decision-making competencies in the course of time, new time series of annual data on the degree of fiscal decentralization are provided for 23 OECD countries in the time period between 1965 and 2001. It is shown that common measures usually employed tend to considerably overestimate the extent of fiscal decentralization. Evidence is also provided for increasing fiscal decentralization in a majority of OECD countries during the last three decades. --Fiscal Decentralization,Measurement of Decentralization,Sub-national Autonomy,Tax Autonomy

Does Fiscal Decentralization Dampen All Ethnic Conflicts? The heterogeneous Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on Local Minorities and Local Majorities

Fiscal decentralization is widely proposed as an efficient means to accommodate ethnic violence. Yet while most of the econometric cross-country studies supports this view, case studies offer mixed results. In this paper, it is argued that this is partly due to the fact that fiscal decentralization exerts a heterogeneous impact across ethnic local majorities and minorities, both types of groups being regionally concentrated. The main argument in favour of fiscal decentralization is that by politically and fiscally empowering the local communities, these are enabled to allocate public spending in a way that is closer to their preferences. This paper hypothesises that such an empowerment mechanism, while relevant for local majorities, is likely to perform poorly for local minorities as they are not in a dominant position locally. This might feed ethnic violence as local minorities mobilize to obtain administrative regions in which they would control the decentralized policy. Similarly, fiscal decentralization could fuel communal violence as politically marginalized ethnic minorities clash against powerful local majorities. The article also hypothesises that the concern expressed by sceptics that fiscal decentralization undermines national cohesion and encourages secessionism is more acute for local majorities than for local minorities as the latter are usually too small to credibly envisage independence. Such hypotheses are discussed in the paper and then empirically tested on a panel dataset of ethnic local majorities and minorities across the world on the period 1985-2001. The main results are that i) fiscal decentralization does not encourage secessionism but on the contrary dampen rebellion of local majorities but, ii) fiscal decentralization fuels rebellion of local minorities, iii) fiscal decentralization reduces communal violence for both local majorities and minorities. As a result of its heterogeneous impact, the article calls into question the relevance of relying on fiscal decentralization to manage ethnic violence.Ethnic conflict; fiscal decentralization; panel data

Priorities for the Distribution of Interbudgetary Transfers Under the Conditions of Fiscal Decentralization in Ukraine

The article is devoted to the problem of the distribution of intergovernmental transfers in Ukraine, taking into account fiscal decentralization trends. To perform the delegated functions, local governments need to have sufficient funding. However, the revenues of local budgets are insufficient to cover all necessary expenses. Therefore, inter-budget transfers, which in Ukraine are the main instrument of financial equalization, play an important role in ensuring the implementation of delegated powers by local governments. The aim of the article is determination of the priorities for the distribution of intergovernmental transfers in Ukraine in the context of fiscal decentralization. The research methodology combines quantitative and qualitative methods. Using quantitative methods, the principles of fiscal decentralization in Ukraine are observed through the mechanism of distribution of intergovernmental transfers. Using high-quality methods and based on the analysis, the priorities of the distribution of inter-budget transfers in the context of fiscal decentralization are formulated. An analysis of foreign publications on fiscal decentralization has shown that the uncertainty of priorities in this area reduces the effectiveness of fiscal decentralization and inhibits the economic development of regions. Prioritization of the distribution of intergovernmental transfers is preceded by the definition of principles for the distribution of intergovernmental transfers. Based on the results of a quantitative analysis, namely, the identified dynamics of fiscal decentralization indicators and the impact of the distribution of intergovernmental transfers on economic development, the following priorities for the distribution of intergovernmental transfers in fiscal decentralization are identified: supporting the prevalence of targeted transfers over non-targeted transfers, increasing the share of capital transfers, increasing the accountability of local authorities self-government regarding the use of funds received in the form of intergovernmental budget transfers

In Government We Trust: The Role of Fiscal Decentralization

We measure the contribution of fiscal decentralization to trust in government. Using repeated cross-country survey data of individuals on several measures of trust in govern- ment over the 1994-2007 period, we estimate an ordered response model of the government trust and fiscal decentralization nexus. We control for unobserved country characteristics, macroeconomic determinants, and individual characteristics. Our main finding is that fiscal decentralization increases trust in government. More specifically, a one percentage point increase in fiscal decentralization causes roughly a four-fifths of a percentage point increase in government trust. The beneficial effect of fiscal decentralization on trust in government is neither limited to nor necessarily large for relatively decentralized countries.Fiscal Decentralization;Government Trust;Social Capital

FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION AND FISCAL AUTONOMY IN THE EU MEMBER STATES

In the process of fiscal decentralization sub-central governments have gained access to different fiscal resources, but the autonomy in setting the taxes is a key issue when analyzing the degree of decentralization. In this paper we calculated an index of tax autonomy for the EU Member States based on the OECD methodology of classification of sub-central taxes according to the degree of control over these taxes. We have shown that the design of intergovernmental fiscal relations is significantly different among the Member States, and taking into consideration the discretion over sub-national taxes provides a valuable insight on the fiscal decentralization design.fiscal decentralization, tax autonomy, intergovernmental fiscal relations

Does fiscal decentralization improve health outcomes? - evidence from a cross-country analysis

Decentralization of fiscal responsibilities has emerged as a primary objective on the agendas of national governments, and international organizations alike. Yet there is little empirical evidence on the potential benefits of this intervention. The authors fill in some quantitative evidence. Using panel data on infant mortality rates, GDP per capita, and the share of public expenditures managed by local governments, they find greater fiscal decentralization is consistently associated with lower mortality rates. The results suggest that the benefits of fiscal decentralization are particularly important for poor countries. They suggest also that the positive effects of fiscal decentralization on infant mortality, are greater in institutional environments that promote political rights. Fiscal decentralization also appears to be a mechanism for improving health outcomes in environments with a high level of ethno-linguistic fractionalization, however, the benefits from fiscal decentralization tend to be smaller.National Governance,Health Economics&Finance,Banks&Banking Reform,Economic Theory&Research,Municipal Financial Management

Fiscal Decentralization in Centralized States : The Case of Central Asia

The resource-based Central Asian countries Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan constitute a special case for fiscal decentralization. Political and administrative centralization is accompanied by the centralized administration of resource rents and weak governance structures on local levels. Following best practices, fiscal decentralization is on the reform agenda in all three transition countries. As advocated in economic literature and indicated in empirical evidence, policymakers expect positive results on macroeconomic outcomes as well as on overall state governance. But the mechanism for the positive effects of fiscal decentralization is the creation of appropriate incentives by transferring information rights and authority to the local levels. How do the centralized states of Central Asia apply fiscal decentralization and what are the outcomes of their policies? To answer this question, we analyze the progress of fiscal decentralization in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan since independence. In all three countries we observe high levels of fiscal decentralization. The de-facto institutional design of fiscal decentralization, however, is not appropriate to make incentive mechanisms work. Fiscal autonomy at the revenue and expenditure side is almost absent, and the transfer system lacks transparency and predictability. Administrative and political centralization are the drivers of this institutional design and create obstacles for the merits of fiscal decentralisation to materialize.