Fiscal Decentralization and Regional Disparity: A Panel Data Approach for OECD Countries

The advantages and disadvantages of public sector decentralization are widely discussed in economics and political science. While some authors argue that decentralization leads to an optimal provision of public services and a promotion of economic growth, others emphasize the dangers of competition associated with decentralization between subnational governments especially for redistributive reasons. These authors argue that poorer regions could not compete for mobile factors with the richer ones and, therefore, poor regions would get poorer and rich regions richer. This paper studies empirically the impact of fiscal decentralization on regional disparities using panel data for 17 OECD countries from 1980 to 2001. As the measurement of decentralization and regional disparity is one of the main difficulties of this research, both are discussed extensively and different measurement concepts are elaborated. The findings of this study are that a high degree of decentralization is connected with low regional disparities. Hence, poor regions have no disadvantages from decentralization, quite the contrary.

[1]  Annekatrin Niebuhr.  Convergence and the Effects of Spatial Interaction , 2000 .

[2]  Steven Brakman,et al.  Locational Competition and Agglomeration: The Role of Government Spending , 2002, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[3]  Agglomeration, Integration and Tax Harmonization , 2000 .

[4]  P. Krugman,et al.  The Spatial Economy , 1999 .

[5]  J. Hausman.  Specification tests in econometrics , 1978 .

[6]  Kerk L. Phillips,et al.  Fiscal decentralisation and IDC economic growth: An empirical investigation , 1998 .

[7]  Serdar Yilmaz,et al.  On the Measurement and Impact of Fiscal Decentralization , 2002 .

[8]  A. Kuhlmann,et al.  Privatization Incentives – A Wage Bargaining Approach , 2005 .

[9]  R. Forslid,et al.  Tax Competition and Economic Geography , 2003 .

[10]  Euijune Kim,et al.  Impacts of national development and decentralization policies on regional income disparity in Korea , 2003 .

[11]  Ravi Kanbur,et al.  Fifty Years of Regional Inequality in China: A Journey Through Revolution, Reform and Openness , 2001 .

[12]  On the determinants of fiscal centralization: Theory and evidence , 1999 .

[13]  G. Flaig,et al.  Labour Market Institutions and Employment Thresholds. An International Comparison , 2005 .

[14]  R. Prud’homme.  The dangers of decentralization , 1995 .

[15]  Manfred G . Schmidt.  When parties matter: A review of the possibilities and limits of partisan influence on public policy , 1996 .

[16]  The New Systems Competition , 2002 .

[17]  Ludger Woessmann,et al.  Computers and Student Learning: Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of Computers at Home and at School , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[18]  Ludger Wössmann,et al.  Chancengleichheit im Schulsystem: Internationale deskriptive Evidenz und mögliche Bestimmungsfaktoren* , 2005 .

[19]  Joseph H. Greenberg,et al.  The Measurement of Linguistic Diversity , 1956 .

[20]  Steffen R. Henzel,et al.  An Alternative to the Carlson-Parkin Method for the Quantification of Qualitative Inflation Expectations: Evidence from the Ifo World Economic Survey , 2005 .

[21]  R. Barro,et al.  Convergence across States and Regions , 1991 .

[22]  D. Wildasin,et al.  Interjurisdictional Capital Mobility: Fiscal Externality and a Corrective Subsidy , 1989 .

[23]  Michael Stimmelmayr,et al.  Implementing a Dual Income Tax in Germany:Effects on Investment and Welfare , 2005 .

[24]  Ulrich Thiessen,et al.  Fiscal Decentralisation and Economic Growth in High‐Income OECD Countries , 2005 .

[25]  Ron Martin,et al.  EMU versus the regions? Regional convergence and divergence in Euroland , 2001 .

[26]  R. Solow.  A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth , 1956 .

[27]  Barry R. Weingast,et al.  Federalism as a Commitment to Reserving Market Incentives , 1997 .

[28]  M. Werding.  Survivor Benefits and the Gender Tax-Gap in Public Pension Schemes Work Incentives and Options for Reform , 2005 .

[29]  Thomas A. E. Fuchs,et al.  Industry Structure and Productivity Growth: Panel Data Evidence for Germany from 1971–2000 , 2005 .

[30]  F. Castles.  Decentralization and the post–war political economy , 1999 .

[31]  M. Kolmar,et al.  Contests with Size Effects , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[32]  C. Kam.  Taxing powers of state and local government , 1999 .

[33]  Rainald Borck,et al.  Agglomeration and Tax Competition , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[34]  Andrey Launov,et al.  Search Equilibrium, Production Parameters and Social Returns to Education: Theory and Estimation , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[35]  Kai E. Sülzle.  Duopolistic Competition between Independent and Collaborative Business-to-Business Marketplaces , 2004 .

[36]  Harm Bandholz.  New Composite Leading Indicators for Hungary and Poland , 2005 .

[37]  Oliver Röhn Rigmar Osterkamp.  Being on Sick Leave – Possible Explanations for Differences of Sick-leave Days Across Countries Privatization , 2007 .

[38]  Klaus Abberger,et al.  The Use of Qualitative Business Tendency Surveys for Forecasting Business Investment in Germany , 2005 .

[39]  Charles M. Tiebout.  A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures , 1956, Journal of Political Economy.

[40]  Klaus Abberger,et al.  Qualitative business surveys and the assessment of employment -- A case study for Germany , 2007 .

[41]  Ludger Wössmann.  Ursachenkomplexe der PISA-Ergebnisse: Untersuchungen auf Basis der internationalen Mikrodaten , 2005 .

[42]  K. Wohlrabe,et al.  The European Union’s Trade Potential after the Enlargement in 2004 , 2005 .

[43]  E. Zhuravskaya,et al.  Decentralization and Political Institutions , 2003 .

[44]  Anwar Shah,et al.  Bridging the Economic Divide Within Countries: A Scorecard on the Performance of Regional Policies in Reducing Regional Income Disparities , 2003 .

[45]  Rodney D. Ludema,et al.  Economic geography and the fiscal effects of regional integration , 2000 .

[46]  Lars P. Feld,et al.  Fiscal Federalism and Economic Growth: Cross-Country Evidence for OECD Countries , 2005 .

[47]  Hans Jarle Kind,et al.  Competing for Capital in a 'Lumpy' World , 1999, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[48]  Kai Sülzle,et al.  Stable and Efficient Electronic Business Networks: Key Players and the Dilemma of Peripheral Firms , 2005 .

[49]  S. Kuznets.  Economic Growth and Income Inequality , 2019, The Gap between Rich and Poor.

[50]  Dan Stegarescu.  Public Sector Decentralization: Measurement Concepts and Recent International Trends , 2005 .

[51]  Marcel Thum.  Korruption und Schattenwirtschaft , 2005 .

[52]  H. Zou,et al.  Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Study , 1998 .

[53]  Sascha O. Becker,et al.  Location Choice and Employment Decisions: A Comparison of German and Swedish Multinationals , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[54]  P. Romer.  Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[55]  Nobuo Akai,et al.  Fiscal Decentralization, Commitment and Regional Inequality: Evidence from State-level Cross-sectional Data for the United States , 2009, Journal of Income Distribution®.

[56]  Michael Berlemann,et al.  Forecasting Inflation via Experimental Stock Markets Some Results from Pilot Markets , 2005 .

[57]  H. Sinn.  The selection principle and market failure in systems competition , 1997 .

[58]  Search Frictions, Credit Constraints and Firm Financed General Training , 2005 .

[59]  P. Krugman.  Geography and Trade , 1992 .

[60]  John D. Wilson.  Theories of Tax Competition , 1999, National Tax Journal.

[61]  Carlos Gil,et al.  Decentralization and regional economic disparities , 2002 .

[62]  W. Oates.  Searching for Leviathan: An Empirical Study , 1985 .

[63]  A. Rodríguez‐Pose,et al.  Is There a Global Link between Regional Disparities and Devolution? , 2004 .

[64]  H. White.  A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity , 1980 .