IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v57y2020i4p806-826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transfer-based decentralisation, economic growth and spatial inequality: Evidence from China’s 2002–2003 tax sharing reform

Author

Listed:
  • Fan Fan

    (Renmin University of China, China)

  • Ming Li

    (University of Pennsylvania, USA)

  • Ran Tao

    (Renman University of China, China)

  • Dali Yang

    (The University of Chicago, USA)

Abstract

China has adopted a transfer-based fiscal decentralisation scheme since the mid-1990s. In the 1994 tax sharing reform, the central government significantly raised its share of government revenue vis-à -vis local governments by taking most of the newly created value-added tax on manufacturing. One aim for the adoption of the transfer-based fiscal scheme was to channel more funds to less developed regions and rural areas, and to alleviate growing interregional inequality and urban–rural income disparity. In 2002 and 2003 the Chinese central government further grabbed 50% and 60%, respectively, of the income taxes previously assigned only to local governments while providing more fiscal transfers to the country’s poor regions and the countryside. Utilising the 2002–2003 change in China’s central–local tax sharing regime as an exogenous policy shock, we employ a Simulated Instrumental Variable approach to causally evaluate the effects of the policy shock on growth, interregional inequality and urban–rural disparity. We find the lower local tax share dis-incentivised local governments and led to lower growth. Although higher central transfers helped to reduce interregional inequalities in per capita GDP and per capita income, the equalising effects were only present for urban incomes. We argue that transfer-based decentralisation without bottom-up accountability was detrimental to economic growth and had limited impact on income redistribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Fan Fan & Ming Li & Ran Tao & Dali Yang, 2020. "Transfer-based decentralisation, economic growth and spatial inequality: Evidence from China’s 2002–2003 tax sharing reform," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(4), pages 806-826, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:57:y:2020:i:4:p:806-826
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098019856780
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098019856780
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098019856780?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bordignon, Massimo & Cerniglia, Floriana & Revelli, Federico, 2004. "Yardstick competition in intergovernmental relationships: theory and empirical predictions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 325-333, June.
    2. Cristian F Sepulveda & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2011. "The Consequences of Fiscal Decentralization on Poverty and Income Equality," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(2), pages 321-343, April.
    3. Gordon B. Dahl & Lance Lochner, 2012. "The Impact of Family Income on Child Achievement: Evidence from the Earned Income Tax Credit," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 1927-1956, August.
    4. Agnese Sacchi & Simone Salotti, 2016. "A Comprehensive Analysis of Expenditure Decentralization and of the Composition of Local Public Spending," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(1), pages 93-109, January.
    5. Gruber, Jon & Saez, Emmanuel, 2002. "The elasticity of taxable income: evidence and implications," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 1-32, April.
    6. Brueckner, Jan K., 2009. "Partial fiscal decentralization," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 23-32, January.
    7. Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Agnese Sacchi, 2017. "The Impact Of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1095-1129, September.
    8. Ravi Kanbur & Xiaobo Zhang, 2005. "Fifty Years of Regional Inequality in China: a Journey Through Central Planning, Reform, and Openness," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 87-106, February.
    9. Blomquist, Sören & Selin, Håkan, 2010. "Hourly wage rate and taxable labor income responsiveness to changes in marginal tax rates," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 878-889, December.
    10. Qiao, Baoyun & Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge & Xu, Yongsheng, 2008. "The tradeoff between growth and equity in decentralization policy: China's experience," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 112-128, April.
    11. Timothy Besley & Anne Case, 1995. "Does Electoral Accountability Affect Economic Policy Choices? Evidence from Gubernatorial Term Limits," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 769-798.
    12. Zhang, Xiaobo, 2006. "Fiscal decentralization and political centralization in China: Implications for growth and inequality," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 713-726, December.
    13. World Bank, 2002. "China - National Development and Sub-National Finance : A Review of Provincial Expenditures," World Bank Publications - Reports 15423, The World Bank Group.
    14. Devarajan, Shantayanan & Danyang, Xie & Zou, Heng-fu, 1998. "Should public capital be subsidized or provided?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 319-331, April.
    15. Faguet, Jean-Paul, 2014. "Decentralization and Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 2-13.
    16. Weingast, Barry R, 1995. "The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 1-31, April.
    17. Feldstein, Martin, 1995. "The Effect of Marginal Tax Rates on Taxable Income: A Panel Study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(3), pages 551-572, June.
    18. Besley, Timothy & Coate, Stephen, 2003. "Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(12), pages 2611-2637, December.
    19. Brian Knight, 2002. "Endogenous Federal Grants and Crowd-out of State Government Spending: Theory and Evidence from the Federal Highway Aid Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 71-92, March.
    20. Feldstein, Martin, 1995. "The Effect of Marginal Tax Rates on Taxable Income: A Panel Study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(3), pages 551-572, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhixin Zeng & Xiaojun Wang, 2021. "Effects of Domestic Tourism on Urban-Rural Income Inequality: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Yang, Xiaoliang & Barros, Lucy & Matthews, Kent & Meenagh, David, 2023. "The dynamics of redistribution, inequality and growth across China s regions," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2023/12, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yongzheng Liu & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Alfred M. Wu, 2017. "Fiscal decentralization, equalization, and intra-provincial inequality in China," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(2), pages 248-281, April.
    2. Soren Blomquist & Anil Kumar & Che-Yuan Liang & Whitney K. Newey, 2022. "Nonlinear Budget Set Regressions for the Random Utility Model," Working Papers 2219, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    3. Jäntti, Markus & Pirttilä, Jukka & Selin, Håkan, 2015. "Estimating labour supply elasticities based on cross-country micro data: A bridge between micro and macro estimates?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 87-99.
    4. Jeffrey L. Coles & Elena Patel & Nathan Seegert & Matthew Smith, 2022. "How Do Firms Respond to Corporate Taxes?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 965-1006, June.
    5. Philipp Doerrenberg & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2017. "The Elasticity of Taxable Income in the Presence of Deduction Possibilities," NBER Chapters, in: Personal Income Taxation and Household Behavior (TAPES), National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Kristoffer Berg & Thor O. Thoresen, 2020. "Problematic response margins in the estimation of the elasticity of taxable income," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(3), pages 721-752, June.
    7. Jongen, Egbert L. W. & Stoel, Maaike, 2019. "The Elasticity of Taxable Labour Income in the Netherlands," IZA Discussion Papers 12090, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Matikka, Tuomas, 2014. "Taxable Income Elasticity and the Anatomy of Behavioral Response: Evidence from Finland," Working Papers 55, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    9. Lehmann, Etienne & Marical, François & Rioux, Laurence, 2013. "Labor income responds differently to income-tax and payroll-tax reforms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 66-84.
    10. Doerrenberg, Philipp & Peichl, Andreas & Siegloch, Sebastian, 2014. "Sufficient Statistic or Not? The Elasticity of Taxable Income in the Presence of Deduction Possibilities," IZA Discussion Papers 8554, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Adam, Stuart & Phillips, David & Roantree, Barra, 2019. "35 years of reforms: A panel analysis of the incidence of, and employee and employer responses to, social security contributions in the UK," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 29-50.
    12. Michaël Sicsic, 2022. "Does labour income react more to income tax or means‐tested benefits reforms?," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 291-319, September.
    13. Jukka Pirttilä & Håkan Selin, 2011. "Tax Policy and Employment: How Does the Swedish System Fare," Working Papers 267, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, The Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.
    14. Lehmann, Etienne & Marical, François & Rioux, Laurence, 2011. "Labor Earnings Respond Differently to Income-Tax and to Payroll-Tax Reforms," IZA Discussion Papers 6108, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Miao, Dingquan & Selin, Håkan & Söderström, Martin, 2022. "Earnings responses to even higher taxes," Working Paper Series 2022:12, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    16. Carina Neisser, 2021. "The Elasticity of Taxable Income: A Meta-Regression Analysis [The top 1% in international and historical perspective]," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(640), pages 3365-3391.
    17. ZHAO Meng (KONISHI Moe), 2017. "Health-Related Income Gaps and the Effectiveness of Redistributive Policies in Japan," Discussion papers 17039, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    18. Lundberg, Jacob, 2017. "Analyzing tax reforms using the Swedish Labour Income Microsimulation Model," Working Paper Series 2017:12, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    19. Nicole Bosch, 2019. "The Incidence of Pension Contributions," CPB Discussion Paper 388.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    20. Thomas Aronsson & James R. Walker, 2010. "Labor Supply, Tax Base and Public Policy in Sweden," NBER Chapters, in: Reforming the Welfare State: Recovery and Beyond in Sweden, pages 127-158, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:57:y:2020:i:4:p:806-826. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.