Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Economic Case for Fiscal Federalism in Scotland

Contents:

Author Info

  • Ronald MacDonald

    (University of Glasgow)

  • Paul Hallwood

    (University of Connecticut)

Abstract

In this paper we consider the case for assigning tax revenues to Scotland, by which we mean that taxes levied on Scottish tax bases should be returned to the Scottish budget. The budget, however, would continue to be supplemented by transfers from the Westminster budget. This arrangement differs from the current situation whereby public spending is largely financed by a bloc grant from Westminster. Our suggestion falls short of full fiscal federalism for Scotland . meaning that Scotland had control over choice of tax base and of tax rates, and fiscal transfers from Westminster would be minimal. We use propositions drawn from the theory of fiscal federalism to argue for a smaller vertical imbalance between taxes retained in Scotland and public spending in Scotland. A closer matching of spending with taxes would better signal to beneficiaries the true costs of public spending in terms of taxes raised. It would also create more complete incentives for politicians to provide public goods and services in quantities and at qualities that voters are actually willing to pay for. Under the current bloc grant system, the marginal tax cost of spending does not enter into political agents. calculations as spending is out of a fixed total budget. Moreover, the Scottish electorate is hindered in signaling its desire for local public goods and services since the size of the total budget is determined by a rigid formula set by Westminster. At the present time we reject proposals for full fiscal federalism because in sharply reducing vertical imbalance in the Scottish budget, it is likely to worsen horizontal balance between Scotland and the other UK regions. Horizontal balance occurs where similarly situated regions enjoy the same per capita level of public goods and services at the same per capita tax cost. The complete removal of the bloc grant under full fiscal federalism would remove the mechanism that currently promotes horizontal equity in the UK. Variability in own-source tax revenues creates other problems with full fiscal federalism. Taxes derived from North Sea oil would constitute a large proportion of Scottish taxes, but these are known to be volatile in the face of variable oil prices and the pound-dollar exchange rate. At the present time variability in oil tax revenue is absorbed by Westminster. Scotland is insulated through the bloc grant. This risk sharing mechanism would be lost with full fiscal federalism. It is true that Scotland could turn to financial markets to tide itself over oil tax revenue downturns, but as a much smaller and less diversified financial entity than the UK as a whole it would probably have to borrow on less favorable terms than can Westminster. Scotland would have to bear this extra cost itself. Also, with full fiscal federalism it is difficult to see how the Scottish budget could be used as a macroeconomic stabilizer. At present, tax revenue downturns in Scotland - together with the steady bloc grant - are absorbed through an increase in vertical imbalance. This acts as an automatic stabilizer for the Scottish economy. No such mechanism would exist under full fiscal federalism. The borrowing alternative would still exist but on the less favorable terms - as with borrowing to finance oil tax shortfalls

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://web2.uconn.edu/economics/working/2004-42.pdf
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Connecticut, Department of Economics in its series Working papers with number 2004-42.

as in new window
Length: 95 pages
Date of creation: Jul 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2004-42

Note: The authors are grateful to Wendy Alexander, Jo Armstrong, Brian Ashcroft, Tam Bayoumi, Diane Coyle, Dhammika Dhamapala, David Heald, John McLaren and Arthur Midwinter for their very helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies: we are responsible for any remaining errors of omission or commission and for the views expressed in the paper
Contact details of provider:
Postal: University of Connecticut 341 Mansfield Road, Unit 1063 Storrs, CT 06269-1063
Phone: (860) 486-4889
Fax: (860) 486-4463
Web page: http://www.econ.uconn.edu/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Barnett formula; bloc grants; devolution; fiscal federalism; local public goods; oil taxes; regional economics; Scottish economy; soft budget constraint; tax assignment; UK economy; UK fiscal system.;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Bayoumi, Tamim & Eichengreen, Barry, 1992. "Shocking Aspects of European Monetary Unification," CEPR Discussion Papers 643, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Luiz R. De Mello Jr., 2004. "Can Fiscal Decentralization Strengthen Social Capital?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 32(1), pages 4-35, January.
  3. Ehdaie, Jaber, 1994. "Fiscal decentralization and the size of the government : an extension with evidence from cross-country data," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1387, The World Bank.
  4. John F. Helliwell & Robert D. Putnam, 1999. "Education and Social Capital," NBER Working Papers 7121, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Olivier Jean Blanchard & Danny Quah, 1988. "The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand and Supply Disturbance," Working papers 497, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  6. Frankel, Jeffrey A & Rose, Andrew K, 1996. "The Endogeneity of the Optimum Currency Area Criteria," CEPR Discussion Papers 1473, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  7. Gordon, Roger H, 1983. "An Optimal Taxation Approach to Fiscal Federalism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 98(4), pages 567-86, November.
  8. Bayoumi, Tamim & Eichengreen, Barry, 1992. "Shocking Aspects of Monetary Unification," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt791143kp, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  9. Davoodi, Hamid & Zou, Heng-fu, 1998. "Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Study," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 244-257, March.
  10. Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2000. "Estimating the Effect of Currency Unions on Trade and Output," NBER Working Papers 7857, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Brennan,Geoffrey & Buchanan,James M., 1980. "The Power to Tax," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521233293, April.
  12. MacDonald, Ronald, 1999. "Exchange Rate Behaviour: Are Fundamentals Important?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(459), pages F673-91, November.
  13. Thom, Rodney & Walsh, Brendan, 2002. "The effect of a currency union on trade: Lessons from the Irish experience," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1111-1123, June.
  14. Knack, Stephen & Keefer, Philip, 1997. "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(4), pages 1251-88, November.
  15. Rafael LaPorta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, . "The Quality of Government," Working Paper 19452, Harvard University OpenScholar.
  16. Julia Darby & Anton Muscatelli & Graeme Roy, 2002. "Fiscal federalism and Fiscal Autonomy: Lessons for the UK from other Industrialised Countries," Working Papers 2002_12, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
  17. Nicholas Crafts, 2004. "High quality public services for Scotland," Economic History Working Papers 12670, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
  18. N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1990. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," NBER Working Papers 3541, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Mario Forni & Lucrezia Reichlin, 2001. "Federal policies and local economies: Europe and the U.S," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/10141, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  20. Artis, Michael J & Ehrmann, Michael, 2000. "The Exchange Rate - A Shock-Absorber or Source of Shocks? A Study of Four Open Economies," CEPR Discussion Papers 2550, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  21. De Grauwe, Paul & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 1991. "Is Europe an Optimum Currency Area? Evidence from Regional Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 555, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  22. Peter Mcgregor & Kim Swales, 2005. "Economics of devolution/decentralization in the UK: Some questions and answers," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 477-494.
  23. Kose, M. Ayhan & Prasad, Eswar & Terrones, Marco E., 2003. "How Does Globalization Affect the Synchronization of Business Cycles?," IZA Discussion Papers 702, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  24. Teresa Dabán Sánchez & Steven A. Symansky & Gian-Maria Milesi-Ferretti & Enrica Detragiache & Gabriel Di Bella, 2003. "Rules-Based Fiscal Policy in France, Germany, Italy and Spain," IMF Occasional Papers 225, International Monetary Fund.
  25. Philip Grossman, 1989. "Fiscal decentralization and government size: An extension," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 63-69, July.
  26. repec:rus:hseeco:123092 is not listed on IDEAS
  27. MacDonald, R., 2000. "The Role of the Exchange Rate in Economic Growth," Papers 9, Warwick - Development Economics Research Centre.
  28. Abramovitz, Moses, 1986. "Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(02), pages 385-406, June.
  29. Jonathan Temple & Paul A. Johnson, 1998. "Social Capability And Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 113(3), pages 965-990, August.
  30. Eckhard Janeba & Guttorm Schjelderup, 2002. "Why Europe Should Love Tax Competition - and the U.S. Even More So," NBER Working Papers 9334, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  31. James R. Hines & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "The Flypaper Effect," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 217-226, Fall.
  32. Ulrich Thießen, 2003. "Fiscal Decentralisation and Economic Growth in High-Income OECD Countries," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 24(3), pages 237-274, September.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Alex Christie & Kim Swales, 2006. "The Efficiency of Decentralised and Devolved Government: A Framework," ERSA conference papers ersa06p533, European Regional Science Association.
  2. James Gallagher & Daniel Hinze, . "Financing Options for Devolved Government in the UK," Working Papers 2005_24, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
  3. Paul Hallwood, 2008. "Minimizing the Price of Tranquility: How to Discourage Scotland's Secession from the United Kingdom," Working papers 2008-23, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
  4. Sharma, Chanchal Kumar, 2007. "Rescuing the concept of vertical fiscal imbalance," MPRA Paper 39343, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2010.
  5. David Heald & Alasdair Mcleod, 2005. "Embeddedness of UK devolution finance within the public expenditure system," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 495-518.
  6. Paul Hallwood & Ronald MacDonald, 2008. "A Review of the Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Fiscal Decentralization on Economic Efficiency: With Comments on Tax Devolution to Scotland," Working papers 2008-46, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
  7. Sharma, Chanchal Kumar, 2010. "Beyond Gaps and Imbalances: Re-Structuring the Debate on Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations," MPRA Paper 32145, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  8. P Hallwood & R.MacDonald, . "A Restatement of the Case for Fiscal Autonomy (or: The Barnett Formula - a formula for Rake's Progress)," Working Papers 2006_14, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.

Lists

This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:
  1. Full fiscal autonomy for Scotland in Wikipedia English ne '')

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2004-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Kasey Kniffin).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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