recent years, a number of large urban school districts have begun efforts to decentralize important decision making authority from the central district office to the local school level, giving greater control over budgeting and management to school staff and parents. Mirroring this approach, school finance researchers are increasingly examining resource allocation issues at more microlevels, such as schools and classrooms. In analyzing funding equity, however, much of the focus has remained at the district-level. While district-level analyses are particularly appropriate for examining systematic relationships between funding levels and district tax bases, they can obscure important resource disparities that may arise between schools within a single district. These issues may be especially critical in large urban districts serving diverse student populations and many students with special needs. This study seeks to help fill this gap by examining resource allocations at the school level in the Chicago Public Schools. Specifically, this article investigates the equity of school-level resource allocations in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) for the 1994-95 school year, the sixth year following the passage of the Chicago School Reform Act. In order to better understand the intradistrict distribution of funding to schools, the article summarizes the results of quantitative analyses of CPS school-level budgets. Because of the inherent difficulties in measuring value-laden concepts such as equity, this article uses a variety of methods and mea
This article explains (1) the origins of central banking and (2) variations in the spread and durability of central banks across nations. Early central banks helped bind governments to honor their debts and thereby furthered governments' capacities to efficiently finance military expenditures. The origins of central banking are problematic because government credit-worthiness and efficient wartime fiscal policy are public goods, subject to the free-rider problem. Applying a variant of the joint-products model, I argue that governments offered private benefits (monopoly privileges) to select creditors to induce participation in central banks. To explain cross-national differences, I argue that the level of domestic political decentralization negatively affected the incidence and durability of central banking. Countries with decentralized political systems faced regulatory competition from strong local authorities as licensers of banking monopolies, making it difficult to adopt or sustain central banking. Qualitative and statistical evidence from Europe and the United States to about 1850 support the arguments.
This title presents an authoritative collection of the most significant papers on fiscal federalism and local finance. In addition to some classic papers, it offers clear and insightful presentations of conventional wisdom in the field as well as recent papers which illuminate important issues and point the way to ongoing research. Topics covered include federal tax structure and the division of fiscal functions among levels of government, the effect of local taxes on economic growth, the systems of governmental grants, income redistribution, the theory and practice of local finance and fiscal decentralization in developing countries and transitional economies.
This two-part paper provides a theoretical framework for appraising trade-offs between alternative methods of delegating authority over the delivery of public services, on the targeting and cost-effectiveness of public spending programs in developing countries. Authority over these programs has to be delegated owing to absence of information at the central level concerning local needs and costs of specific communities. In a top-down centralized system, this authority is delegated to bureaucrats by a central government that has limited ability to monitor their performance with respect to either service delivery or cost control. In a decentralized system, it is allocated instead to elected local governments or client groups, which may be subject to capture by local elites. Both systems are thus prone to local corruption and lack of accountability. Part 1 of the paper studies the relevant tradeoffs in the context of a poverty alleviation program, whose aim is to deliver a private merit good available on competitive markets to the poor. Decentralization generally dominates with respect to inter-community targeting as well as cost-effectiveness. However, the ranking of intracommunity targeting under the two systems is ambiguous, and depends on the relative degree of capture that local and national governments are prone to, besides the nature of uncertainty and preferences of the good by the nonpoor. Part 2 of the paper considers an infrastructure service provided by a public enterprise which has a natural monopoly. In this context it is shown that decentralization dominates if the following four conditions are satisfied: (i) local governments are not vulnerable to capture; (ii) local governments have access to adequate local financing sources; (iii) there are no interjurisdictional externalities in service provision; and (iv) local governments have all the bargaining power and access to relevant cost information vis-a-vis public enterprise managers. Absent any one of these institutional conditions, however, decentralization may perform worse than centralization. The Appendix develops a model of electoral competition (adapted from Grossman-Helpman (1996)) where parties are prone to capture by special interest groups, which helps identify some of the institutional determinants of the degree of capture of local and central governments.
The goal of this paper is to review the state of our knowledge in the economics literature on the causal relationship between fiscal decentralization and economic growth and democratic governance, whether these relationships are uni-directional or bi-directional, and to what extent there appear to exist synergies or pre-conditions between fiscal decentralization, on the one hand, and economic growth and democratic governance, on the other.Little systematic empirical research has been dedicated to testing the strength of the bi-directional links between fiscal decentralization and democratic governance. At the present time, we have little knowledge about whether fiscal decentralization is preceded by the emergence of democratic institutions, whether fiscal decentralization encourages the establishment of local democratic institutions, or whether fiscal decentralization and subnational democratic governance occur at the same time. What we know about these issues is based on case studies and conjectures and observations from particular country experiences. The information base on decentralization and governance has been limited because case studies of the fiscal decentralization systems in particular countries often pay little attention to governance issues.There are strong reasons a priori to argue that there should be a symbiotic relationship between fiscal decentralization and democratic governance. Explicitly, and more often implicitly, democratic governance is widely acknowledged in the economics literature as a necessary condition for effective fiscal decentralization. But clearly, there is wide consensus that the relationship also works the other way. Greater fiscal decentralization, especially the devolution or delegation of tax and financing and spending powers to subnational governments promotes democratic governance through representation and accountability.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
Financing Decentralized Expenditures presents new original research papers on the structure of intergovernmental fiscal relations in virtually all types of countries and the design and implementation of transfer mechanisms between different levels of government.
We examined a setting where decision making about financing a given amount of government spending is decentralized. Seigniorage is the residual tax that passively adjusts to meet the budget constraint. We place this budget making process in a repeated game setting and characterize the cooperative tax-seigniorage function. Three main results are (1) Seignioiage and transitory changes in output are positively correlated. This result holds after controlling for changes in government spending. (2) A positive (negative) covariation between current period government spending and transitory output strengthens (weakens) the positive relationship between seigniorage and transitory output. (3) Seigniorage is negatively correlated with trend output growth. Time series empirical tests using annual data for 20 OECD countries support the first two results. A test using cross-section data on 75 countries confirms the third hypothesis. Copyright 1997 by Ohio State University Press.
In this paper a competi tive general equilibrium model is used to investigate the welfare and long run allocation impacts of privatization. There are two types of capital in this model economy, one private and the other initially public ('infrastructure'), and a positive extemality due to the latter is assumed. A benevolent governrnent can improve upon decentralized allocation intemalizing the extemality, but it introduces distortions in the economy through the finance of its investments. It is shown that even making the best case for public action - maximization of individuais' welfare, no operation inefficiency and free supply to society of infrastructure services - privatization is welfare improving for a large set of economies. Hence, arguments against privatization based solely on under-investment are incorrect, as this maybe the optimal action when the financing of public investment are considered. When operation inefficiency is introduced in the public sector, gains from privatization are much higher and positive for most reasonable combinations of parameters.
The governments of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are at a crucial juncture in their movement from highly centralized command economies to more decentralized market economies. While there is a belief in these countries that decentralization brings greater economic efficiency, the reality is that such a transition is a difficult process. This paper examines what types of administrative reforms are needed for the decentralization process, how far along the countries are with respect to these reforms, and what reforms are missing. As we discuss, many of the necessary administration reforms are missing and we argue that more attention must be paid to these elements for successful decentralization of these governments. This paper examines the recent experience and reform needs of the key administrative aspects of the design of intergovernmental relations in countries in transition in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. There is a widespread realization in all of these countries that decentralizing government will help increase efficiency in the public sector just as privatization will improve efficiency in their economies. Decentralization of government operations is also attractive as a way to cement a democratic form of government. Despite the appearances of the existence of an already decentralized system, such as in the case of the Soviet Union, this experiment started in practically all cases with a lack of institutions and experience on how decentralized government operations should be organized. As different as these countries are, there are many similarities in the reform process they are following in order to decentralize government structure. While the basic components of a decentralized system of government are emerging in many of these countries the structure of government has not fully evolved in a manner that can support such a decentralized system. Often, governments remain structured along a vertical hierarchy: information, budgetary authority, and revenue pass from the central government down to subnational levels of government while little communication or interaction exists at a horizontal level. In general, the assignment of revenue and expenditure has not been clearly defined among the two or three levels of government, central government transfers continue to occur in a relatively ad hoc manner, and the entire budgeting system still rests in many cases on more or less formal system of negotiations and bargaining among the different levels of government. There has been some change in this structure in certain countries. Over the last three years, both Poland and Hungary have legally increased the automony of subnational governments. In 1994 in Russia a new and more transparent system of intergovernmental grants has been established between the federal government and the regions. In 1994 also, Latvia introduced a more transparent formula-driven, transfer formula for the regional and municipal governments. The focus of this paper is to develop a “blue print” for necessary changes in organization and administration of intergovernmental relations in countries in transition. While many experts have recently been discussing the public finance policy components of this new, evolving relationship among levels of government, less attention has been paid to the structural and administrative challenges and the information design issues that must be met in order to develop and support a system of intergovernmental relations. The paper is organized as follows: First we review the major responsibilities and their allocation among levels of government, the assignment of revenue sources, and the system of transfers. We then turn to a discussion of the current experience of Eastern European and NIS countries in the context of the structural components of an intergovernmental fiscal system. Next, we analyze the organizational reforms that are necessary for the efficient functioning of a decentralized system of government in the economies in transition. Finally we “rate” the transition economies in relation to their current design of the system of intergovernmental relations and support mechanisms.
A model of a central government and two local governments is used to study the role of fiscal federation in reducing the effect of revenue externalities between local jurisdictions. Immobile consumers buy goods in both their own and the other local community and pay sales taxes in each community. Depending on demand parameters, the fiscal externality may be positive or negative. In the former case, the local governments set tax rates below those a central government would choose. With a positive revenue externality, the central government can use the same tax bases as local governments to finance revenue sharing grants, stimulating local public expenditure, and thus raising welfare. If communities are heterogeneous, this revenue sharing system will not be fully optimal, but it can dominate a system of exclusive central revenue collection.