Fiscal decentralization determinants: analysis of the eu countries´ clustered sample in period 1995-2015

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMaličká, Lenka
dc.contributor.authorMartinková, Slavomíra
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-28
dc.date.available2018-06-28
dc.date.issued2018-06-28
dc.description.abstractFiscal decentralization as a shift of decision-making powers from the central level of government to lower government levels is an object of wide research. In this field there is a discussion ranging from the eligibility of fiscal decentralization, its advantages and threats, to searching for the fiscal decentralization´s impact on certain macroeconomic indicators. Research focusing on investigating for fiscal decentralization determinants has not clear answer to this question. It considers various indicators often with their ambiguous impact on fiscal decentralization. In this paper, the problem of fiscal decentralization determinants is investigated on the EU countries sample in period 1995-2015. EU countries are divided into groups according to their fiscal decentralization average degree using the cluster analysis. Fiscal decentralization different measures refer on the expenditure, revenue, tax and grant decentralization. For each cluster a panel model is estimated to reveal an influence of selected variables on fiscal decentralization, while fiscal decentralization as dependent variable is measured by chosen various measure. Sensitivity of the estimation results on the fiscal decentralization measurement is obvious. Obtained results partially support assumptions given on basics of related literature. Significant appearance of the economy openness variable, GDP per capita growth and inflation rate, public and local debt variable and variable based on dependency ratio, and population density is influenced by construction of the fiscal decentralization indicator. It might explain the disunited character of observed FEM and REM results, additionally the turn of coefficient sign comparing fiscal decentralization measures postulates certain common tendencies revealing the fiscal decentralization character and conditions.en
dc.formattext
dc.format.extent15 strancs
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2018-2-011
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn1212-3609
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/26421
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.ispartofAfonso, A., & Hauptmeier, S. (2009). Fiscal Behaviour in the European Union: Rules, Fiscal Decentralization and Government Indebtedness (Paper no. 1054). Frankfurt Am Main, Germany: European Central Bank. Retrieved September 13, 2016, from https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1054.pdf?65329bbc7780082f990568f9ebddd89e.cs
dc.relation.ispartofAkai, N., Nishimura, Y., & Sakata, M. (2004). Fiscal Decentralization, Economic Growth and Economic Volatility – Theory and Evidence from State-level Cross-section Data for the United States [Discussion Paper Series no. 03-F-2]. The Centre for International Trade Studies, Faculty of Economics, Yokohama National University.cs
dc.relation.ispartofAkai, N., Nishimura, Y., & Sakata, M. (2007). Complementarity, fiscal decentralization and economic growth. Economics of Governance, 8(4), 339-362. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10101-007-0032-5.cs
dc.relation.ispartofAMECO. (2016). General government [Data file]. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/db_indicators/ameco/index_en.htm.cs
dc.relation.ispartofArellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2297968.cs
dc.relation.ispartofAristovnik, A. (2012). Fiscal Decentralization in Eastern Europe: Trends and Selected Issues. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 37, 5-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2187475.cs
dc.relation.ispartofBalodis, R., Kārkliņa, A., & Danovskis, E. (2013). The Development of Constitutional and Administrative Law in Latvia after the Restoration of Independence. Law: Journal of the University of Latvia, 5, 44-119.cs
dc.relation.ispartofBaltagi, B. H. (2001). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.cs
dc.relation.ispartofBlume, L., & Voigt, S. (2008). Federalism and Decentralization – A Critical Survey of Frequently Used Indicators [Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics, No.21-2008].cs
dc.relation.ispartofBlázquez-Fernández, C., Cantarero-Prieto, D., & Pascual-Sáez, M. (2017). Patient Cross-Border Mobility: New Findings and Implications in Spanish Regions. Economics and Sociology, 10(1), 11-21. https://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2017/10-1/1.cs
dc.relation.ispartofBodman, P., Ford, K., Gole, T., & Hodge, A. (2009). What drives Fiscal Decentralization? Retrieved July 27, 2016, from http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/mrg/3009.pdf.cs
dc.relation.ispartofBrennan, G., & Buchanan J. (1980). The Power to Tax: Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution. New York: Cambridge University Press.cs
dc.relation.ispartofCanavire-Bacarreza, G., & Martinez-Vazquez, J. (2012). Reexamining The Determinants Of Fiscal Decentralization: What Is The Role of Geography? [Working Paper 12-11]. International Center for Public Policy. Retrieved August 14, 2016, from http://icepp.gsu.edu/files/2015/03/ispwp1211.pdf.cs
dc.relation.ispartofCrowley, G. R., & Sobel, R. S. (2011). Does Fiscal Decentralization Constrain Leviathan? New Evidence from Local Property Tax Competition. Public Choice, 149(5), 5-30. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-011-9826-7.cs
dc.relation.ispartofDžupka, P., Klasová, S., & Kováč, V. (2016). Analysis of Innovative Start-Up Companies – Case of Košice Region. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 20(1), 40-56. https://dx.doi.org/10.12776/qip.v20i1.641.cs
dc.relation.ispartofEurostat. (2016). Economy and Finance. Retrieved August 08, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/help/new-eurostat-website.cs
dc.relation.ispartofGonzales-Eiras, M., & Niepelt, D. (2016). Fiscal Federalism, Taxation and Grants [Working Paper 16.05]. Study Center Gerzensee. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from http://www.szgerzensee.ch/fileadmin/Dateien.Anwender/Dokumente/workig-papers/wp-1605.pdf.cs
dc.relation.ispartofGreene, W. (2011). Économétrie, Édition francophone (7th ed.). Pearson Education France.cs
dc.relation.ispartofHorváthová, L., Horváth, J., Gazda, V., & Kubák, M. (2012). Fiscal Decentralization and Public Debt in the European Union. Lex Localis: Journal of Local Self-Government, 10(3), 265-276. https://dx.doi.org/10.4335/10.3.265-276.cs
dc.relation.ispartofHybka, M. M. (2016). Allocating Tax Revenue to Sub-Central Government Levels: Lessons from Germany and Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 11(4), 689-709. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/EQUIL.2016.031.cs
dc.relation.ispartofJha, P. Ch. (2015). Theory of fiscal federalism: an analysis. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 17(2), 241-259. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40847-015-009-0.cs
dc.relation.ispartofJílek, M. (2009). Fiscal Decentralization Ratios in Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Bohemiae Meridionales, 12(3), 17-26.cs
dc.relation.ispartofJílek, M. (2015). Factors of Tax Decentralization in OECD – Europe Countries. European Financial and Accounting Journal, 10(2), 33-49. https://dx.doi.org/10.18267/j.efaj.140.cs
dc.relation.ispartofLachet-Touya, F. (2016). Horizontal and Vertical Tax Interactions in a Common Agency Game [CATT Working Paper No. 12]. Centre d´Analyse Théoretique et de Traitement des données économiques. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from http://catt.univ-pau.fr/live/.cs
dc.relation.ispartofMaličká, L. (2016). Determinants of Leviathan in the European Countries. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 11(1), 97-106.cs
dc.relation.ispartofMarlow, M. L. (1988). Fiscal Decentralization and Government Size. Public Choice, 56, 259-269.cs
dc.relation.ispartofMartí, J., Alguacil, M., & Orts, V. (2017). Location Choice of Spanish Multinational Firms in Developing and Transition Economies. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(2), 319-339. https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2015.1013980.cs
dc.relation.ispartofMendoza, E. G., & Tesar, L. L. (2005). Why Hasn´t Tax Competition Triggered a Race-to-the-Bottom? Some quantitative lessons from the EU. Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(1), 163-204. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2004.07.002.cs
dc.relation.ispartofMinistry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic. (2017). Economic Information about the Territory: Republic of Lithuania. Retrieved January 17, 2018, form https://www.mzv.sk/documents/750116/620840/Litva+-+ekonomick%C3%A9+inform%C3%A1cie+o+terit%C3%B3riu+2017.cs
dc.relation.ispartofMusgrave, R. (1959). The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw.cs
dc.relation.ispartofOates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt.cs
dc.relation.ispartofOates, W. E. (1985). Searching for Leviathan: An Empirical Study. The American Economic Review, 75(4), 748-757.cs
dc.relation.ispartofOates, W. E. (1989). Searching for Leviathan: A Reply and Some Further Reflections. The American Economic Review, 79(3), 578-583.cs
dc.relation.ispartofOates, W. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1120-1149. https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.37.3.1120.cs
dc.relation.ispartofOates, W. E. (2005). Toward A Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism. International Tax and Public Finance, 12(4), 349-373. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10797-005-1619-9.cs
dc.relation.ispartofOECD. (2016). A Taxonomy of Tax Autonomy. OECD Fiscal Decentralization Database. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from https://www.oecd.org/ctp/federalism/oecdfiscaldecentralisationdatabase.htm#A_Title.cs
dc.relation.ispartofPanizza, U. (1999). On the Determinants of Fiscal Centralization: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 74(1), 97-139.cs
dc.relation.ispartofProvazníková, R. (2015). Financování měst, obcí a regionů. Praha: Grada Publishing.cs
dc.relation.ispartofRazin, A., & Sadka, E. (2011). Tax Competition and Migration: The Race-to-the-Bottom Hypothesis Revisited [NBER Working Paper Series. No. 11670]. Retrieved December 01, 2016, from https://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/econ/documents/textesadka.pdf.cs
dc.relation.ispartofŘezánková, H., Húsek, D., & Snášel, V. (2009). Zhluková analýza dat (2nd ed.). Příbram: Professional Publishing, PBTisk.cs
dc.relation.ispartofReuters. (2012, October 27). Hungary govt to take on 1.7 billion pounds of municipal debt. Business News. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hungary-localgovts-idUKBRE89Q05920121027.cs
dc.relation.ispartofRodden, J. (2003). Reviving Leviathan: Fiscal Federalism and Growth of Government. International Organization, 57(4), 695-729. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020818303574021.cs
dc.relation.ispartofRodríguez-Pose, A., & Ezcurra, R. (2011). Is Fiscal Decentralization Harmful for Economic Growth? Evidence from the OECD countries. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(4), 619-643. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq025.cs
dc.relation.ispartofRodríguez-Pose, A., & Krøijer, A. (2009). Fiscal decentralization and Economic Growth in Central and Eastern Europe [LEQS Paper No. 12/2009]. The London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/LEQS%20Discussion%20Paper%20Series/LEQSPaper12.pdf.cs
dc.relation.ispartofSamuelson, P. A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387-389. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1925895.cs
dc.relation.ispartofSamuelson, P. A. (1955). Diagrammatic Exposition of theory of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 37(4), 350-356. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1925849.cs
dc.relation.ispartofShah, A. (2007). Introduction: The Principles of Fiscal federalism. In A. Shah (Ed.), The Practice of Fiscal Federalism: Comparative Perspectives. (pp. 3-42). McGill-Queen´s University Press.cs
dc.relation.ispartofSinicakova, M., Sulikova, V., & Gavurova, B. (2017). Twin deficits threat in the European Union. E&M Ekonomie a Management, 20(1), 144-156. https://dx.doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2017-1-010.cs
dc.relation.ispartofSinicakova, M., & Gavurova, B. (2017). Single Monetary Policy versus Macroeconomic Fundamentals in Slovakia. Ekonomický časopis, 65(2), 158-172.cs
dc.relation.ispartofStansel, D. (2006). Interjurisdictional competition and local government spending in U.S. metropolitan areas. Public Finance Review, 34(2), 173-194. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1091142105283576.cs
dc.relation.ispartofStatistics Estonia. (2017). Population of counties after administrative reform. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from https://www.stat.ee/news-release-2017-121.cs
dc.relation.ispartofStegarescu, D. (2004). Economic Integration and Fiscal Decentralization: Evidence from OECD Countries [ZEW Discussion Paper No. 04-86]. Centre for European Economic Research. Retrieved August 25, 2016, from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/24093.cs
dc.relation.ispartofStegarescu, D. (2005). Public Sector Decentralisation: Measurement Concepts and Recent International Trends. Fiscal Studies, 26(3), 301-333. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2005.00014.x.cs
dc.relation.ispartofŠiroký, J. (2009). Daně v Evropské unii. Praha: Linde.cs
dc.relation.ispartofThießen, U. (2003). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in high income OECD countries. In 18th Annual Congress of the European Economic Association (EEA). SE-Stockholm, 20-24 August 2003.cs
dc.relation.ispartofTiebout, Ch. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416-424. https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/257839.cs
dc.relation.ispartofWagner, A. (1876). Grundlegung der politischen Okonomie. Bd. 1: Grundlagen der Volkswirthschaft (3rd ed.). Leipzig.cs
dc.relation.ispartofWorld Bank. (2001). Fiscal Decentralization Indicators. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/fiscalindicators.htm.cs
dc.relation.ispartofZąbkowicz, A. (2017). Economics and groups: methodological individualism and collective action. Oeconomia Copernicana, 8(1), 7-20. https://dx.doi.org/10.24136/oc.v8i1.1.cs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjectpublic sectoren
dc.subjectfiscal federalismen
dc.subjectfiscal decentralizationen
dc.subjectcluster analysisen
dc.subjectpanel dataen
dc.subject.classificationH77
dc.titleFiscal decentralization determinants: analysis of the eu countries´ clustered sample in period 1995-2015en
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage171
local.citation.spage157
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.filenameEM_2_2018_11
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.issue2
local.relation.volume21
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EM_2_2018_11.pdf
Size:
1.36 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Článek
Download
Collections
Číslo 2