Relative consumption and majority voting: supplementing Oates’ “Decentralization Theorem”

This paper reconsiders the question of whether centralized or decentralized provision of local public goods is preferable, taking into account two new elements: the appearance of relative consumption effects and the possibility of an inefficient election outcome due to a right-skewed income distribution. Surprisingly, our results indicate that (1) decentralization may lead to a strictly higher welfare level than centralization, even if regions are homogeneous, and (2) under certain circumstances centralization may be welfare superior, even though traditional public good spillovers are not considered in our framework. Whether centralization or decentralization is preferable crucially depends on the extent to which social interaction takes place between regions.     

Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach

This paper takes a fresh look at the trade-off between centralized and decentralized provision of local public goods. It argues that the sharing of the costs of local public spending in a centralized system will create a conflict of interest between citizens in different jurisdictions. When spending decisions are made by a legislature of locally elected representatives, this conflict of interest will play out in the legislature. Depending on precisely how the legislature behaves, the result may be excessive public spending or allocations of public goods characterized by uncertainty and misallocation across districts. The extent of the conflict of interest between districts is affected by spillovers and differences in tastes for public spending. Thus, the relative performance of centralized and decentralized systems depends upon spillovers and differences in tastes for public spending, but for different reasons than suggested in the existing literature.     

Employment and Wages in the Private and Local Government Sectors in a Centralized Fiscal System

This paper discusses the interaction between the local government and private sector in an institutional context consistent with a centralized fiscal system. Under decentralized wage setting in the private sector, the effects of shocks in the two sectors depend on whether private and local public goods are substitutes or complements in the union utility function. Higher wage markup in the local government sector unambiguously decreases government output while the effect on private sector employment is ambiguous. Higher income taxes have ambiguous effects on local government output. Shocks in the private sector can be reinforced through feedback effects from the local government sector. A shift from decentralized to centralized wage setting in the private sector reduces wages and increases employment in both sectors.     

Uniformity Requirement and Political Accountability

This paper discusses the fundamental hypothesis of policy uniformity under centralized decision making, which underlies Oates' famous decentralization theorem. The theorem has, in more recent times, come under pressure owing to the prediction that local public goods are provided to minimum winning coalitions rather than uniformly. The focus of this paper is on the impact of uniformity rules on political accountability. Using the concept of minimum winning coalitions, it is shown that the power of voters over politicians vanishes if election districts receive different levels of local public goods. However, the setting up of sufficiently strong uniformity rules means that voters regain power. According to Oates' theorem, uniformity is the main disadvantage of centralization but, according to the analysis undertaken in this paper, centralization without uniformity would be even worse.     

Decentralizing development: Allocating public goods via competition

Decentralizing the allocation of public goods by giving funds directly to communities takes advantage of local information concerning needs, but leaves funds open to misuse or capture by local elites. A large scale development project in Indonesia attempts to overcome this downside of decentralized allocation by having communities compete locally for block grants. Competition weeds out less efficient projects. Increasing the number of villages bidding by 10% leads to a 1.8% decline in road construction costs. Increased community participation in project planning also leads to better outcomes.     

Interregional Disparities in Productivity and the Choice of Fiscal Regime

Two districts with divergent productivity levels engage in policy-making on the provision of local public goods that enhance future income and hence create a dynamic linkage across periods. The policy choices of district representatives are derived under alternative fiscal systems, and the relative merits of the systems are evaluated. It is predicted that a decentralized system is more likely to be selected in a more equal society. On the other hand, when a great deal of benefit spills over from a local public good, or when policy makers are expected to care solely about the immediate effects of their decisions on their districts, a centralized system is more likely to be selected.     

Human Fallibility, Complementarity, and Fiscal Decentralization

This paper examines economic growth properties under alternative fiscal organizations when a bureau's decisions are fallible. A country consists of J jurisdictions, which need a public service. In a centralized government, one authority decides on services in every jurisdiction. In a decentralized government, J authorities are in charge of each public service. An authority can have high ability or low ability, and an authority with high ability draws a good project with higher probability. We first show that the decentralized government provides the same average quality of public services, with lower variance, than does the centralized government. We then apply this result to an economic growth model where the value of the Solow residual is a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) function of public services. We show that there is a critical value of the degree of complementarity below which fiscal decentralization is more desirable than fiscal centralization for an expected economic growth, and the decentralized government has a lower variance of GDP growth.     

完善中国政府间转移支付的路径选择

作为分权化财政体制的组成部分,政府间转移支付在不同制度环境下产生的效果也存在很大差异。中国自上而下的财政分权强调更多的是发挥中央政府的宏观调控作用和保证中央政府取得足够的财政资源,因此转移支付在很大程度上被用于弥补地方财政缺口,成为中央政府实现纵向控制的重要手段。改进中国转移支付体系的策略应当是进一步完善以公式为基础的分配标准,并在政治上可行的情况下促进均等化。     

Decentralizing Public Goods Production

Decentralized decisions, to a bureau with a given budget, about the production of public goods is analyzed within a general equilibrium model with a representative agent and no pure profits. Contrary to previous results on decentralization it is shown that sequential decentralization (i) does not necessarily imply aggregate production efficiency and (ii) need not be optimal even if all public goods are neutral. Also, cost‐benefit criteria are derived and the marginal cost of public funds is characterized.     

分税制改革、地方财政自主权与公共品供给

本文发现20世纪90年代中期以来中国地方公共品供给水平有下降趋势,同时发现较高的公共品供给水平总是和较高的地方财政自主权联系在一起.本文应用分省面板数据,特别利用了1994年分税制改革导致的地方财政自主权的跨时和跨区变化,为上述假设提供了实证证据.本文认为中国在财政分权化过程中面临的一系列既有制度设置可以作为上述因果关系的解释机制.一系列测量偏误和模型选择的检验显示本文的实证结论是稳健的.基于中国的研究支持了那些认为财政分权而不是集权将改善地方公共品供给水平的观点.     

Small-Group,Multi-Level Democracy: Implications of Austrian Public Choice for Governance Structure

This paper examines the process of mass democracy as the fundamental cause of transfer seeking and the centralization of governance, using Austrian-school theory and methodology such as decentralized knowledge, disaggregated phenomena, and the structure of capital goods. The alternative of decentralized, small-group governance reduces the demand for campaign financing and makes more effective use of decentralized knowledge. In addition, when public revenues originate in the local districts and are passed on to higher levels of governance, it provides incentives for revenue sources which do not have an excess burden on production. The governance structure of cellular, bottom-up, multi-level voting, with public revenue flowing up from the lower to the upper levels, provides a contrast for a comparative systems analysis that can yield insight into the transfer seeking endemic in mass democracy.     

转型中的分权与公共品供给:基于中国经验的实证研究

文章首先从理论上阐述了中国转型中分权与公共品供给的内在联系;进而利用中国省级面板数据,构建动态结构模型,在控制住财政分权与公共品内生关系基础上,运用系统广义矩估计方法(SYS GMM)检验证实了理论分析的推论:分权对"硬"公共品供给有明显加速作用,时"软"公共品供给有明显抑制作用;经济较差的地区,分权速度会加快,其中人口密度较高的地区分权速度要比人口密度低的地区快;人口密度较高、经济较好的地区分权速度会减弱;分权程度变化与政府行政效率间存在显著正相关关系."发展型政府"更偏好"硬"公共品供给,因而更偏好高分权.     

Fiscal decentralization and political centralization in China: Implications for growth and inequality

China's current fiscal system is largely decentralized while its governance structure is rather centralized with strong top-down mandates and a homogeneous governance structure. Due to large differences in initial economic structures and revenue bases, the implicit tax rate and fiscal burdens to support the functioning of local government vary significantly across jurisdictions. Regions initially endowed with a broader nonfarm tax base do not need to rely heavily on preexisting or new firms to finance public goods provision, thereby creating a healthy investment environment for the nonfarm sector to grow. In contrast, regions with agriculture as the major economic activity have little resources left for public investment after paying the expenses of bureaucracy. Consequently, differences in economic structures and fiscal burdens may translate into a widening regional gap. Journal of Comparative Economics 34 (4) (2006) 713–726.     

Centralization vs. Decentralization: A Principal-Agent Analysis

The decision to allocate policy jurisdictions to different levels of government is related to a number of trade‐offs between the advantages and disadvantages of centralized versus decentralized provision of public services. A trade‐off central to many discussions is that between the internalization of externalities under centralization versus an “accountability” advantage of decentralization. In this paper we formalize this trade‐off in the context of a class of principal–agent models known as common agency.     

空间外部性视角下的地方政府支出策略互动模式

运用空间面板计量方法研究了分税制改革以来中国地方政府支出的策略互动模式。结果表明,基本建设、文教科卫和预算外支出具有显著的空间自相关性,表现出策略互补,行政管理支出则由于地方财力情况的差异形成策略替代,效益外溢性、财政竞争机制和标尺效应在其中交替发挥了主导作用。财政收支分权对支出策略互动模式的影响效果并不一致,扩张支出分权将加剧以基建支出为主的地方政府竞争。财政分权的改革方向是使地方政府在一定程度上拥有收入自主权,中央适当上收具有强烈区域外溢性的公共品供给责任,降低地方非正式收支自主权,从制度层面营造地区间协调有序的竞争关系。     

Asymmetric Decentralization,Intergovernmental Transfers,and Expenditure Policies of Local Governments

Although China’s asymmetric fiscal decentralization system has been criticized for many years, there have been few studies giving direct evidence of its negative incentives on local government spending policies. By introducing the mechanism of asymmetric decentralization and fiscal transfers to the objective function of local government, this paper studies the incentive effects of asymmetric decentralization and fiscal transfers on spending policies of local governments, and uses the provincial panel data to carry out an empirical test. The conclusion shows that the asymmetric decentralization significantly weakens the incentives of local government to increase social expenditure, and as a solution to asymmetric decentralization, fiscal transfers fail to play a good role. Due to the relatively large income effect, the financing mechanism of fiscal transfers not only significantly reduces the incentives of local government to provide social public goods, but also weakens the constraint effect of fiscal competition on expenditure policies of local governments because of the increase in the relative cost. Although the distribution mechanism of fiscal transfers has a significant positive incentive to local government in regions where the net inflow of fiscal resources is more than zero, because of common pooling effects, the comprehensive effects of fiscal transfers in the distribution of incentives of local governments to provide social public goods are negative in all regions.     

中央政府监管下的地方公债融资制度构想

作者认为,地方公共品需求的扩大和财政收支压力提出了地方政府债务融资的问题,而监督地方政府的民主机制建设落后,我国现阶段赋予地方政府独立举债权尚不现实,目前只能采取渐进式过渡性的办法--建立中央政府监管下的地方公债制度,以中央监管代替民主监督来解决地方政府在公共产品供应上资金不足的问题.据此,本文提出了中央政府监管下的地方公债制度构架及相关配套的改革建议.     

Efficient local taxation and local public goods

This paper considers local public goods which crowd both with respect to the number of people served and the amount of property served. It is shown that it may be possible to have efficient decentralized provision of such goods using marginal cost taxes; however, the pricing system in this case is likely to require very large numbers of competing communities. Thus, it appears to be preferable to have separate jurisdictions provide goods which crowd with respect to people — such as education. The implications for stratification are also considered.     

税收竞争、地区博弈及其增长绩效

中国的财政分权改革激发了地方政府推进本地区经济发展的积极性,但不恰当的分权路径也加剧了地区间的税收竞争。本文运用空间滞后模型,对中国省际间的税收竞争与博弈行为进行检验。研究显示,省际间税收竞争反应函数斜率为负,这说明省际间在税收竞争中采取的是差异化竞争策略;同时也意味着地方政府目前对公共产品的偏好较低。而对省际间税收竞争增长绩效的格兰杰因果检验则显示,公共服务水平对地区经济增长率具有显著的促进作用,并且地方政府的征税努力与其财政充裕状况直接相关。为此,本文提出应加快地区基本公共服务的均等化和转移支付的法制化进程,努力打破数量型增长的政绩观,从制度层面营造地区间协调有序的竞争关系。     

Decentralization and political institutions

Does fiscal decentralization lead to more efficient governance, better public goods, and higher economic growth? This paper tests Riker's [Riker, W. (1964) “Federalism: Origins, Operation, Significance,” Little, Brown and Co, Boston, MA.] theory that the results of fiscal decentralization depend on the level of countries' political centralization. We analyze cross-section and panel data from up to 75 developing and transition countries for 25 years. Two of Riker's predictions about the role of political institutions in disciplining fiscally-autonomous local politicians are confirmed by the data. 1) Strength of national political parties significantly improves outcomes of fiscal decentralization such as economic growth, quality of government, and public goods provision. 2) In contrast, administrative subordination (i.e., appointing local politicians rather than electing them) does not improve the results of fiscal decentralization.