Fiscal Decentralization and Political Budget Cycles

We analyze a problem à la Rogoff where incumbents can distort fiscal policy to signal their competency, but where fiscal policy can be centralized or decentralized. Our main focus is on how the equilibrium probability that fiscal policy is distorted in any region (the political budget cycle, PBC) differs across fiscal regimes. With centralization, there are generally two effects that change the probability of a PBC. One is the possibility of selective distortion: the incumbent can be reelected with the support of just a majority of regions. The other is a cost diversification effect, which is present unless costs are perfectly correlated across regions. Both these effects work in the same direction, with the general result that the PBC probability is lower under centralization when decentralization also involves PBC. Welfare analysis shows that voters tend to be better off when the PBC probability is lower, so voters prefer centralization when decentralization involves PBC. Our results are robust to a number of changes in the specification of the model.     

The future of fiscal federalism

For at least three decades after World War II, there was little interest in fiscal decentralization. Because of the large growth in public spending that took place during that period, a growth that was mainly focused at the central government level, this was a period characterized by fiscal centralization in most countries. Starting in the late 1970s, a reaction against large governments started. This reaction followed two distinct tracks: privatization and fiscal decentralization. The paper argues that these two tracks were almost two sides of the same coin and were largely mutually exclusive. They reflected similar concerns and objectives. In more recent decades, globalization has been creating global public goods or public “bads” and international activities that would require public attention or the action of a “world government”. Because no such government exists, its role is progressively being delegated to proxies, in the form of international organizations, agreements, treaties, accords and other forms of international understandings. The paper concludes that this development is likely to weaken over time the role of central governments. It also speculates that it may strengthen the importance of municipalities.     

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.     

Public budget composition,fiscal (de)centralization,and welfare

Abstract We study the optimal degree of fiscal decentralization in a dynamic federal economy where governments decide on budget size and its allocation between public education and infrastructure spending. We find that full centralization of tax and expenditure policies is optimal when infrastructure productivity is similar across regions. When differences are not too large, partial centralization is optimal. With strong differences, full decentralization becomes optimal. National steady‐state output tends to be highest under full decentralization. We provide a justification for the mixed evidence regarding the Oates conjecture by showing that full dominates partial decentralization, despite being inferior to complete decentralization.     

财政收入集权增加了基层政府公共服务支出吗?以河南省减免农业税为例

很多研究表明,中国式分权导致了地方政府财政支出结构偏重基础设施建设,忽视公共服务和人力资本投入。免征农业税和相应的转移支付降低了基层政府的财政独立性,其影响与上述政策结果相似。利用河南省108个县级单位2001—2008年的面板数据,本文对减免农业税后的财政支出进行了实证检验,发现受到免征农业税影响较大的县农业支出显著增加,对教育的投入显著下降。由于前者主要是由新农村建设等政策压力造成的,这说明财政收入集权强化了那些易于考核的政策目标的执行力度。     

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.     

最优财政分权度与我国经济增长的关系研究

过度集权或者过度分权都不利于经济增长,因此理论上可能存在一个最优财政分权度,并与最优经济增长水平相适应.本文对我国1985年至2000年财政分权对经济增长的影响进行了非线性关系检验,结果表明我国的最优财政分权度为66.67%.同时指出,我国的财政分权并不是面临一个是否应进一步分权或集权的问题,而是应该朝着制度完备的分权方向发展,使得财政分权通过制度的规范化、科学化、透明化、公正化而发挥其积极作用.     

Distributive Politics and the Costs of Centralization

This paper studies the choice between centralization and decentralization of fiscal policy in a political economy setting. With centralization, regional delegates vote over agendas comprising sets of region–specific projects. The outcome is inefficient because the choice of projects is insufficiently sensitive to within–region benefits. The number of projects funded may be non–monotonic in the strength of project externalities. The efficiency gains from decentralization, and the performance of "constitutional rules" (such as majority voting) which may be used to choose between decentralization and centralization, are then discussed in this framework. Weaker externalities and more heterogeneity between regions need not increase the efficiency gain from decentralization.     

财政分权:促进国有企业效率提高的可置信承诺机制

中国的渐进式改革是政治集权下的财政分权改革。财政分权增强了地方政府发展地方经济的激励,导致地方政府间争夺经济资源的竞争。这种竞争提高了救助低效率国有企业的机会成本,可以作为一种承诺机制,硬化国有企业的预算约束,进而促进经济增长。     

构建以财产税为主体的地方税体系研究

随着我国政治经济体制改革的深入,我国也开始了财政分权的改革历程,并期望以此来促进公共产品供给效率,解决基层政府的财政困难。财政分权的核心支撑因素就是地方应拥有可自主支配的地方税,且财产税和地方税主体税种的选择标准有很高的吻合度。另外,研究还发现:销售税和个人所得税作为地方税主体税种的合理性值得怀疑。在地方主体税种的构建中,综合国外成功经验并本着地方税收原则,建议把我国现行的房地产税收体系改革、整合为新的财产税,并以此作为我国地方税收入的主要来源。     

集权与分权的抉择—改革开放30年中国财政体制的变迁

中国财政体制的演变反映出财政分权程度不仅没有提高,反而出现了财政集权的趋势;当前中央和地方间的事权错位,财权上移,事权下放,导致基层政府的支出责任过大;不当的事权和财权的划分造成了我国财政纵向不平衡较高,地方政府对中央政府的依赖度较高,但税收控制度低;财政分权对政府规模、经济增长和收入分配等有着不确定的影响;未来的改革还需要在进一步权衡分权和集权优劣的基础上作出选择,适当的分权是大势所趋。     

Fiscal Federalism and Electoral Accountability

We evaluate how governance uncertainty—exemplified by turnout uncertainty—affects the trade‐off between internalization of externalities and political accountability in the design of the fiscal state. We show that centralization only weakens political accountability in the presence of negative externalities. Unlike positive externalities, negative externalities allow federal politicians to extract higher rents. This yields two new insights. First, decentralization can only Pareto dominate centralization in economies with negative externalities. Second, centralization may not be Pareto efficient in economies with positive externalities despite the fact that policy can be tailored to regional taste differences and centralization internalizes the positive externality.     

Decentralization and the shadow economy: Oates meets Allingham–Sandmo

This article studies the impact of decentralization on the shadow economy. We argue that decentralization may decrease the size of the shadow economy mainly through two transmission channels: (1) decentralization enhancing public sector efficiency (efficiency effect), and (2) decentralization reducing the distance between bureaucrats and economic agents, which increases the probability of detection of shadow economic activities (deterrence effect). Using various measures of fiscal, political and government employment decentralization in a cross-section of countries, we find the deterrence effect to be of more importance. The deterrence effect is stronger, the lower the degree of institutional quality. We find no robust evidence of the efficiency effect.     

Centralization and government competition

This paper examines the relationship between government size and fiscal centralization with specific focus on the separate influences of centralism and fragmentation on the size of public sector in the United States. The empirical findings at the national level provide support to the hypothesis that fiscal decentralization leads to a smaller government. The findings at the state and local levels, however, show no empirical relationship between government size and the degree of centralization.     

Sharing the Blame? Local Electoral Accountability and Centralized School Finance in California

Although local electoral accountability should be stronger when responsibilities are clearly assigned to local governments, the involvement of higher tiers of government is often associated with policies specifically designed to improve local accountability. This article investigates the impact of centralization on local electoral accountability in the context of California's school finance system. Results show that voters are responsive to differences in dropout rates and pupil–teacher ratios, at least in some contexts, and that local electoral accountability is affected by a district's degree of centralization. Dropout rate regressions reveal that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 appears to have sharpened local electoral accountability.     

Fiscal crises,decentralization, and indiscipline

How does fiscal decentralization influence fiscal discipline and the probability of a fiscal crisis? Discrete choice analysis used with panel data reveals that crisis probability is associated positively with spending decentralization and negatively with vertical fiscal imbalance. These effects are prevalent in countries with a higher degree of tax revenue decentralization, while a stronger rule of law mitigates such adverse decentralization effects. The findings imply that reduced risk sharing against local shocks under tax revenue decentralization destabilizes the sustainability of a nation's fiscal system. Therefore, policymakers should be cognizant of the undesirable impacts of decentralization on fiscal crisis and indiscipline.     

Local governments’ fiscal balance and privatization in transition countries1

Several transition economies have undertaken fiscal decentralization reforms over the past two decades along with liberalization, privatization and stabilization reforms. Theory predicts that decentralization may aggravate fiscal imbalances, unless the right incentives are in place to promote fiscal discipline. This study uses a panel of 20 transition countries over 19 years to address a central question of fact: Did privatization help to promote local governments’ fiscal discipline? The answer is clearly ‘no’ for privatization considered in isolation. However, privatization and subnational fiscal autonomy along with reforms to the banking system – restraining access to soft financing – may prove effective at improving fiscal balances among local governments.     

Fiscal decentralization,fiscal rules and fiscal discipline

Fiscal decentralization (FD) and fiscal rules (FR) are institutional mechanisms that are implemented by varying degrees in increasing number of countries. This paper investigates empirically the effect of FR on the effectiveness of FD in achieving fiscal discipline. Panel evidence strongly supports that balanced budget and expenditure rules help FD to achieve this goal, while debt rule has a direct disciplinary effect.     

Eliciting Preferences to Assign Positions and Compensation

We describe strategy-proof rules for economies where an agent is assigned a position (e.g., a job) plus some of a divisible good. For the 2-agent–2-position case we derive a robust characterization. For the multi-agent–position case, many “arbitrary” such rules exist, so we consider additional requirements. By also requiring coalitional strategy-proofness or nonbossiness, the range of a solution is restricted to the point that such rules are not more complex than those for the Shapley–Scarf housing model (no divisible good). Third, we show that essentially only constant solutions are immune to manipulations involving “bribes.” Finally, we demonstrate a conflict between efficiency and strategy-proofness. The results extend to models (without externalities) in which agents share positions. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, D70.     

Fiscal discipline and exchange rates: Does politics matter?

We look at the effect of exchange rate regimes on fiscal discipline, taking into account the effect of underlying political conditions. We present a model where strong politics (defined as policymakers facing longer political horizon and higher cohesion) are associated with better fiscal performance, but fixed exchange rates may revert this result and lead to less fiscal discipline. We confirm these hypotheses through regression analysis performed on a panel sample covering 79 countries from 1975 to 2012. Our empirical results also show that the positive effect of strong politics on fiscal discipline is not enough to counter the negative impact of being at/moving to fixed exchange rates. Our results are robust to a number of sensitivity checks, including the use of different estimators, alternative proxies for fiscal discipline and sub-sample analysis.