Balanzas fiscales vs cuentas públicas territorializadas: Análisis y valoración de las diferencias

Resumen:Las balanzas fiscales han alimentado de un intenso debate público dominado por las pasiones. No obstante, los últimos instrumentos utilizados para medir los flujos fiscales (Balanza Fiscal de Cataluña de la Generalitat y Sistema de Cuentas Públicas Territorializadas del Ministerio de Hacienda) atesoran una elevada calidad técnica. Sus metodologías muestran coincidencias notables y contrastes manifiestos. La primera integra series temporales largas y las dos perspectivas usuales, flujo monetario y carga-beneficio. El segundo presenta la ventaja de su vocación integral, el tratamiento desagregado de las partidas, la inclusión de las relaciones con la Unión Europea y algunas soluciones concretas para la asignación territorial de recursos y empleos que suponen un avance. Las diferencias en resultados pueden ser explicadas, en lo fundamental, por unas pocas decisiones de alcance metodológico.Abstract: Interregional fiscal imbalances in Spain have feed an intense debate in both the academic and public arenas, particularly in Catalonia. Computations of interregional fiscal flows and balances may be useful to detect any comparative grievances between citizens living in different areas. While regional autonomy involves differences in fiscal menus, (reflecting differences in preferences), federal fiscal flows strong enough (including equalization grants) will imply that the existence of differences in tax capacity will not mean structural differences in the quality of public services or regional tax burdens. Hence, it is crucial to distinguish between a normal or standard operation of redistributive mechanisms (social security system, progressive direct taxation) and the share the imbalances whose justification is not obvious and therefore is potentially worrisome. Consequently, attention should focus less on the aggregate imbalances, and more on its decomposition. On the other hand, the computation of fiscal flows can be also used to support secessionist political strategies. In this case, the main aim would be to calculate a synthetic figure, the overall regional imbalance, to evaluate the financial relationship with the federal or central government. Moreover, the most appropriate methodology would be different. Therefore, a careful assessment of the methods used to qualify the results is a key issue. Focusing on differences between the different methods or approaches makes it possible to place the discussion in a rational way. The analysis of the most recent technical tools (Fiscal Balance of Catalonia, BFC, promoted by the Government of Catalonia; Territorially Public Accounts System, SCPT, commissioned by the Spanish Ministry of Finance) shows that there is no single way to compute regional fiscal balances. Information is necessarily imperfect, and assumptions about allocation of expenditure and income always incorporate a dose of subjectivism. This should lead to caution in the presentation of results and moderation in their social and political interpretation. In this article, we contrast the assumptions used by the Government of Catalonia to build the cash flow (also called monetary flow) and burden-benefit (also called tax-benefit) approaches; and we clarify the methodological differences for the burden-benefit method between the BFC and the SCPT, which only uses it. The time reference for both studies is year 2011. The persistence in the effort made by the Government of Catalonia provide us with a long series (1986-2011) of the fiscal balance of this region. This long time span makes it possible analyzing the sensitivity to cycle for the balance results. The balances are computed using both methodological perspectives pointed out above, but the monetary flow approach is privileged in the presentation of results. On the contrary, the SCPT covers all Spanish regions. This comprehensive treatment makes possible a comparative synchronic analysis, which downplays the fiscal imbalances of one or another region by placing them in a framework. Advanced breakdown by expenditure functions and items substantially improves the understanding of the performance of the public sector in territorial perspective and helps to detect anomalies. The sheer volume of information is carefully handled and shown with maximum transparency. Instead of a single balance can be displayed multiple balances with different sign for different items of income and expense in terms that allow comparison between regions. The option for burden-benefit approach is consistent with the objectives of work (assessing the territorial equity in public action) and with the intention of limiting decontextualized interpretations of some results. However, with little effort it would also be possible to present the results of the cash flow method, which facilitate contrast to other approaches. We hope that, in future editions some aspects will be refined: neutralization of deficit, consideration of certain items of local administration and management of regional flows with the European Union, among others. So far, the results are limited to 2011. Methodological choices explain the lion’s share of differences in results of both BFC and SCPT for the Catalan case. It should not solemnize an imbalance overall result. Any synthetic figure in fiscal balances is the product of multiple methodological choices and necessary simplifications involving some margin of error. In any case, overall figures mostly responds to the impact of general rules (the progressivity of the tax system or the consideration of the needs in the system of regional financing, among others) on regional inequalities in per-capita income, in wealth, in proportion of population employed or sociodemographic characteristics. However, the SCPT also shows a number of anomalies involving foral regions, Canary Islands, and Ceuta and Melilla.