№ 11/2022

Fìnansi Ukr. 2022 (11): 113–125https://doi.org/10.33763/finukr2022.11.113

LOCAL FINANCE

PAVLIUK Klavdiia ¹, BARTOSH Serhii ²

¹SESE “The Academy of Financial Management”
OrcID ID : https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9495-6630
²SESE “The Academy of Financial Management”
OrcID ID : https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9491-991X

Modern approaches to fiscal decentralization

Introduction. Decentralization in Ukraine, the new stage of which began in 2014, in particular regarding the redistribution of powers and financial resources between the levels of the budget system, played a positive role in ensuring the livelihood of communities under martial law after the start of full-scale Russian aggression.
Problem Statement. In domestic scientific opinion, attention is usually paid either to the applied aspects of budgetary (fiscal, financial) decentralization, or to the analysis of classic works of representatives of the first and second generations of fiscal decentralization. At the same time, any practical measures require the study of theoretical foundations, including those that have been developed over decades and those that have developed in recent years.
Purpose. To generalize the works of foreign scientists on fiscal decentralization, which cover the first and second generation of theories, as well as relate to currently relevant issues.
Methods. General scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, grouping, generalization, etc. are used.
Results. An analysis of the theories of fiscal decentralization of the first and second generation was carried out, in particular in the aspects of increasing accountability and transparency of the government system, balanced (centralized and decentralized) provision of local public goods, the influence of endogenous and exogenous factors on its overall effect, theories of social choice, etc. The issue of fiscal decentralization, which is currently the subject of research by scientists, is considered: the impact on economic growth and human development, the dependence of the positive effect on the quality of the institutional environment, the role in anti-crisis regulation, the ratio of advantages and disadvantages in countries with developed economies, newly industrialized countries and developing countries.
Conclusions. A certain consensus of scientists has been formed on the positive impact of decentralized systems, implemented worldwide over the last few decades, on socioeconomic development and growth of the economy, especially subject to proper substantiation of relevant reforms. At the same time, the impact on human development is ambiguous and depends on many internal and external factors. A sufficiently high quality of the institutional environment is a prerequisite for the successful course of the fiscal decentralization. In centralized countries, which are characterized by a rather rigid mechanism of economic regulation, fi scal decentralization is not only possible but also causes positive consequences, although they do not always coincide with the results of countries with liberal economies. Fiscal decentralization also justifies itself in emergency situations, which confirms the example of Ukraine after the start of full-scale Russian aggression, when communities have shown the ability to respond quickly to internal and external challenges, including accepted and satisfied the urgent needs of several millions of internally displaced persons.

Keywords:fiscal decentralization, theories of fiscal decentralization of the first and second generation, the impact of fiscal decentralization on economic growth and human development, advantages and disadvantages of fiscaldecentralization

JEL: B26, H77

PAVLIUK K. . Modern approaches to fiscal decentralization / K. . PAVLIUK, S. Bartosh // Фінанси України. - 2022. - № 11. - C. 113-125.

Article original in Ukrainian (pp. 113 - 125)

Download

Downloads :107

1. Oates, W. E. (2005). Toward a second-generation theory of fiscal federalism. Journal of International Tax and Public Finance, 12, 349–373. doi.org/10.1007/s10797-005-1619-9
2. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64 (5), 416–424. doi.org/10.1086/257839
3. Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The Theory of Public Finance – A Study in Public Economy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4. Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
5. Olson, M. (1969). The principle of ‘fiscal equivalence’: the division of responsibilities among different levels of government. American Economic Review, 59 (2), 479–487.
6. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1980). The Power to Tax – Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Hankla, Ch. R. (2009). When is fiscal decentralization good for governance? Publius: Journal of Federalism, 39 (4), 632–650. doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjn034
8. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (2003). Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach. Journal of Public Economics, 87 (12), 2611–2637. doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00141-X
9. Lockwood, B. (2092). Distributive politics and the costs of centralisation. Review of Economic Studies, 69 (2), 313–337. doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00207
10. Petchey, J., & Levtchenkova, S. (2002). The welfare effects of fiscal equalisation in a federal economy with factor mobility and strategic behaviour. Mimeo, School of Economics and Finance, Curtin University.
11. Wagner, R. (2007). Fiscal Sociology and the Theory of Public Finance: An Exploratory Essay. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. doi.org/10.4337/9781781951354
12. Arif, U., & Ahmad, E. (2020). A Framework for Analyzing the Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on Macroeconomic Performance, Governance and Economic Growth. The Singapore Economic Review, 65 (01), 3–39. doi.org/10.1142/S0217590818500194
13. Hungn, T., & Thanh, S. D. (2022). Fiscal decentralization, economic growth, and human development: Empirical evidence. Cogent Economics & Finance, 10 (1). doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2109279
14. Szarowská, I. (2022). Does Fiscal Decentralization Matter for Economic Development? Case of the Czechia. Journal of Eastern Europe Research in Business and Economics. doi.org/10.5171/2022.856279
15. Neyapti, B. (2013). Fiscal decentralization, fiscal rules and fiscal discipline. Economics Letters, 121 (3), 528–532. doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.10.006
16. Nakatani, R., Zhang, Q., & Garcia Valdes, I. (2022). Fiscal Decentralization Improves Social Outcomes When Countries Have Good Governance. Working Paper, 111. doi.org/10.5089/9798400211768.001
17. Bartolini, D., Sacchi, A., Salotti, S., & Santolini, R. (2018). Fiscal decentralization in times of financial crises. CESifo Economic Studies, 64 (3), 456–488. doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifx008
18. Foremny, D., Sacchi, A., & Salotti, S. (2017). Decentralization and the duration of fiscal consolidation: Shifting the burden across layers of government. Public Choice, 171 (3-4), 359–387. doi.org/10.1007/s11127-017-0441-0
19. Canavire-Bacarreza, G., Martinez-Vazquez, J., & Yedgenov, B. (2020). Identifying and disentangling the impact of fiscal decentralization on economic growth. World Development, 127. doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104742
20. World Bank. (n. d.). Fiscal Decentralization. Retrieved from web.worldbank.org/archive/website01061/WEB/0__CO-11.HTM.
21. Chimshit, S., Golovkova, L., Grabovskii, I., & Yakymova, A. (2020). Conceptual principles of budget decentralization strategy development in Ukraine. Journal of European Economy, 19 (2), 315–340. doi.org/10.35774/jee2020.02.315
22. Slyusarchuk,  O., Kryshtof,  N., & Doronina, I. (2021). Financial decentralization in context of reforming inter-budgetary relations: quantitative dimensions and indicators. Scientific Papers of the Legislation Institute of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 1, 143–154. doi.org/10.32886/instzak.2021.01.14
23. Dixon, G., & Hakim, D. (2009). Chapter 9. Making Indonesia's budget decentralization work: The challenge of linking planning and budgeting at the local level. In The Many Faces of Public Management Reform in the Asia-Pacific Region (Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 18), pp. 207–245. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi.org/10.1108/S0732-1317(2009)0000018011
24. Bird, R. (2000). Intergovernmental fiscal relations: universal principles, local applications. Working Paper, 00-2. International Studies Program, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
25. Shah, A. (2004). Expenditure Assignment. Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and Local Financial Management Program. Washington, DC: World Bank.
26. Martinez-Vazquez, J. (2001). The assignment of expenditure responsibilities. Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
27. Vo, D. (2008). Fiscal decentralisation indices: a comparison of two approaches. Rivista di diritto finanziario e scienza delle finanze, LXVII (3, I), 295–323.
28. Qian, Y.; & Weingast, B. R. (1997). Federalism as a commitment to preserving market incentives. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11 (4), 83–92. doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.83
29. Tanzi, V. (1996). Fiscal Federalism and Decentralization: A Review of Some Efficiency and Macroeconomic Aspects. Retrieved from www.mef.gob.pe/contenidos/pol_econ/documentos/Fiscal_Federalism_Decentralization.pdf.
30. Shah, A. (2006). Fiscal decentralization and macroeconomic management. International Tax and Public Finance, 13 (4), 437–462. doi.org/10.1007/s10797-006-8948-1
31. Martinez-Vazquez, J., & McNab, R. M. (2003). Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth. World Development, 31 (9) 1597–1616. doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00109-8
32. Weingas, R. (2009). Second generation fiscal federalism: The implications of fiscal incentives. Journal of Urban Economics, 65 (3), 279–293. doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2008.12.005
33. Chandra, P., Jha. (2012). Theory of Fiscal Federalism: An Analysis. Retrieved from mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41769/.