IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/presci/v97y2018i3p801-826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are local public services better delivered in more autonomous regions? Evidence from European regions using a dose‐response approach

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Filippetti
  • Giovanni Cerulli

Abstract

Does regional autonomy lead to better local public services? We investigate this issue using measures of public service performance and autonomy at the region level in 171 European regions. We introduce a novel dose‐response approach which identifies the pattern of the effect of regional autonomy on the performance of public services. The relationship between the level of regional autonomy and the provision of local public services exhibits a u‐shape: both low and high autonomy lead to better local public services. This speaks against the presence of one optimal level of autonomy and policy recommendations based on the view that more decentralisation is always desirable. It shows that different institutional settings can be economically viable and efficient. ¿Conduce la autonomía regional a mejores servicios públicos locales? Este artículo investiga este tema utilizando medidas de desempeño y autonomía del servicio público a nivel regional en 171 regiones europeas. Se introduce un nuevo enfoque de dosis‐respuesta que identifica el patrón del efecto de la autonomía regional en el desempeño de los servicios públicos. La relación entre el nivel de autonomía regional y la prestación de servicios públicos locales presenta una forma de"u": tanto la baja como la alta autonomía conducen a mejores servicios públicos locales. Esto contradice la presencia de un nivel óptimo de autonomía y de recomendaciones políticas basadas en la opinión de que siempre es deseable una mayor descentralización. Se demuestra que diferentes marcos institucionales pueden ser económicamente viables y eficientes. 地域の自主性は、地域の公共サービスの改善を導くだろうか? 本稿では、ヨーロッパの171の地域における、地域レベルでの公共サービス実施と自主性を測定して、この問題を検討する。新しい用量反応アプローチを導入し、これにより公共サービスの実施に対する地域の自主性の効果のパターンを確認する。地域の自主性のレベルと地域の公共サービスの実施との関連性はU字型曲線を示し、自主性が高いレベルでも低いレベルでも、いずれも結果的に公共サービスは改善されている。これは、最適な自主性のレベルは一つであることや、自律分散を進めることが絶対的に好ましいという見方に基づいた政策勧告に異を唱えるものである。背景にある制度上の違いは、経済的に実行可能であり、効果的であることを示している。

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Filippetti & Giovanni Cerulli, 2018. "Are local public services better delivered in more autonomous regions? Evidence from European regions using a dose‐response approach," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 97(3), pages 801-826, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:presci:v:97:y:2018:i:3:p:801-826
    DOI: 10.1111/pirs.12283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12283
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/pirs.12283?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64, pages 416-416.
    2. Besley, Timothy & Case, Anne, 1995. "Incumbent Behavior: Vote-Seeking, Tax-Setting, and Yardstick Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 25-45, March.
    3. Georg Grassmueck & Martin Shields, 2010. "Does government fragmentation enhance or hinder metropolitan economic growth?," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(3), pages 641-657, 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. Guardabascio, Barbara & Ventura, Marco, 2013. "Estimating the dose-response function through the GLM approach," MPRA Paper 45013, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2013.
    6. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ezcurra, 2011. "Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 619-643, July.
    7. Enikolopov, Ruben & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2007. "Decentralization and political institutions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(11-12), pages 2261-2290, December.
    8. Giovanni Cerulli, 2022. "Econometric Evaluation of Socio-Economic Programs," Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, Springer, edition 2, number 978-3-662-65945-8, July-Dece.
    9. Olivier Blanchard & Andrei Shleifer, 2001. "Federalism With and Without Political Centralization: China Versus Russia," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 48(4), pages 1-8.
    10. Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2002. "Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 325-345, March.
    11. Barbara Ermini & Raffaella Santolini, 2014. "Does Globalization Matter on Fiscal Decentralization? New Evidence from the OECD," Global Economic Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 153-183, June.
    12. Alberto Alesina & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2011. "Segregation and the Quality of Government in a Cross Section of Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1872-1911, August.
    13. Weingast, Barry R., 2014. "Second Generation Fiscal Federalism: Political Aspects of Decentralization and Economic Development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 14-25.
    14. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2003. "Further results on instrumental variables estimation of average treatment effects in the correlated random coefficient model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 185-191, May.
    15. Suho Bae & Moon-gi Jeong & Seong-gin Moon, 2015. "Effects of institutional arrangements in local water supply services in Korea," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(4), pages 849-868, November.
    16. Andreas P Kyriacou & Oriol Roca-Sagalés, 2011. "Fiscal and Political Decentralization and Government Quality," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(2), pages 204-223, April.
    17. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    18. Andreas P. Kyriacou & Leonel Muinelo-Gallo & Oriol Roca-Sagalés, 2015. "Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: The importance of good governance," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(1), pages 89-107, March.
    19. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    20. Brennan,Geoffrey & Buchanan,James M., 2006. "The Power to Tax," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521027922.
    21. Ceren Ozgen & Peter Nijkamp & Jacques Poot, 2012. "Immigration and innovation in European regions," Chapters, in: Peter Nijkamp & Jacques Poot & Mediha Sahin (ed.), Migration Impact Assessment, chapter 8, pages 261-298, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    22. Dan Stegarescu, 2005. "Public sector decentralisation: measurement concepts and recent international trends," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 26(3), pages 301-333, September.
    23. Faguet, Jean-Paul, 2014. "Decentralization and Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 2-13.
    24. Marie-Estelle Binet, 2003. "Fiscal competition between municipalities : Granger causality evidence in a dynamic panel data model," Post-Print halshs-00109401, HAL.
    25. Hall, Peter A. & Gingerich, Daniel W., 2009. "Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementarities in the Political Economy: An Empirical Analysis," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 449-482, July.
    26. Bordignon, Massimo & Cerniglia, Floriana & Revelli, Federico, 2003. "In search of yardstick competition: a spatial analysis of Italian municipality property tax setting," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 199-217, September.
    27. Daniel Lederman & Norman V. Loayza & Rodrigo R. Soares, 2005. "Accountability And Corruption: Political Institutions Matter," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17, pages 1-35, March.
    28. 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.
    29. Giovanni Cerulli, 2015. "ctreatreg: Command for fitting dose–response models under exogenous and endogenous treatment," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 15(4), pages 1019-1045, December.
    30. Valentina Adorno & Cristina Bernini & Guido Pellegrini, 2007. "The Impact of Capital Subsidies: New Estimations under Continuous Treatment," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 66(1), pages 67-92, March.
    31. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1997. "On two stage least squares estimation of the average treatment effect in a random coefficient model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 129-133, October.
    32. Bird, Richard M., 1993. "Threading the Fiscal Labyrinth: Some Issues in Fiscal Decentralization," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 46(2), pages 207-227, June.
    33. Andrea Filippetti & Agnese Sacchi, 2016. "Decentralization and economic growth reconsidered: The role of regional authority," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1793-1824, December.
    34. Paolo Liberati & Agnese Sacchi, 2013. "Tax decentralization and local government size," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 183-205, October.
    35. Faguet, Jean-Paul, 2004. "Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs?: Evidence from Bolivia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 867-893, March.
    36. Nicholas Charron & Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente, 2014. "Regional Governance Matters: Quality of Government within European Union Member States," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(1), pages 68-90, January.
    37. Joanis, Marcelin, 2014. "Shared accountability and partial decentralization in local public good provision," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 28-37.
    38. Kyriacou, Andreas P. & Roca-Sagalés, Oriol, 2011. "Fiscal decentralization and government quality in the OECD," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(3), pages 191-193, June.
    39. Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 2006. "Decentralisation and Accountability in Infrastructure Delivery in Developing Countries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(508), pages 101-127, January.
    40. Olson, Mancur, 1993. "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 567-576, September.
    41. Thornton, John, 2007. "Fiscal decentralization and economic growth reconsidered," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 64-70, January.
    42. Andreas Kyriacou, 2012. "Ethnic segregation and the quality of government: the importance of regional diversity," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 166-180, June.
    43. Roger Congleton & Andreas Kyriacou & Jordi Bacaria, 2003. "A Theory of Menu Federalism: Decentralization by Political Agreement," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 167-190, September.
    44. Khemani, Stuti, 2010. "Political capture of decentralization : vote-buying through grants-financed local jurisdictions," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5350, The World Bank.
    45. Michela Bia & Alessandra Mattei, 2008. "A Stata package for the estimation of the dose–response function through adjustment for the generalized propensity score," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 8(3), pages 354-373, 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


    Cited by:

    1. Luis Diaz-Serrano & Enric Meix-Llop, 2019. "Decentralization and the quality of public services: Cross-country evidence from educational data," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(7), pages 1296-1316, November.
    2. Andres Rodriguez-Pose & Miquel Vidal-Bover, 2022. "Unfunded mandates and the economic impact of decentralisation. When finance does not follow function," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2221, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2022.
    3. Boto-García, David & Pérez, Levi, 2023. "The effect of high-speed rail connectivity and accessibility on tourism seasonality," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Enrique J. Buch‐Gómez & Roberto Cabaleiro‐Casal, 2020. "Turnout, political strength, and cost efficiency in Spanish municipalities of the autonomous region of Galicia: Evidence from an alternative stochastic frontier approach," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(3), pages 533-553, June.
    5. Roberto Ganau & Andrés Rodríguez‐Pose, 2019. "Do high‐quality local institutions shape labour productivity in Western European manufacturing firms?," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 98(4), pages 1633-1666, August.

    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. Andrea Filippetti & Giovanni Cerulli, 2014. "Decentralization and the quality of local governments: Evidence in European regions with a dose-response approach," ERSA conference papers ersa14p367, European Regional Science Association.
    2. 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.
    3. Choudhury, Atrayee & Sahu, Sohini, 2022. "Revisiting the nexus between fiscal decentralization and government size - The role of ethnic fragmentation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    4. Keith Blackburn & Gareth Downing, 2015. "Deconcentration, Corruption and Economic Growth," Centre for Growth and Business Cycle Research Discussion Paper Series 209, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    5. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Lars P. Feld & Jan Schnellenbach, 2014. "Fiscal Federalism, Decentralization and Economic Growth: Survey and Meta-Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 4985, CESifo.
    6. Tristan Canare, 2021. "Decentralization and Development Outcomes: What Does the Empirical Literature Really Say?," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 237(2), pages 111-151, June.
    7. Andrea Filippetti & Agnese Sacchi, 2016. "Decentralization and economic growth reconsidered: The role of regional authority," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1793-1824, December.
    8. Jin, Haizhen, 2023. "Effects of decentralization on firm performance: Evidence from Chinese county-level quasi-experiments," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    9. Reingewertz, Yaniv, 2014. "Fiscal Decentralization - a Survey of the Empirical Literature," MPRA Paper 59889, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Burret, Heiko T. & Feld, Lars P. & Schaltegger, Christoph A., 2022. "Fiscal federalism and economic performance new evidence from Switzerland," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    11. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Lars P. Feld & Jan Schnellenbach, 2016. "Fiscal Federalism, Decentralization, And Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1445-1463, July.
    12. Lessmann, Christian & Markwardt, Gunther, 2010. "One Size Fits All? Decentralization, Corruption, and the Monitoring of Bureaucrats," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 631-646, April.
    13. Nadia Fiorino & Emma Galli & Fabio Padovano, 2013. "Do fiscal decentralization and government fragmentation affect corruption in different ways? Evidence from a panel data analysis," Chapters, in: Santiago Lago-Peñas & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez (ed.), The Challenge of Local Government Size, chapter 5, pages 121-147, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. David Bartolini & Agnese Sacchi & Domenico Scalera & Alberto Zazzaro, 2018. "The closer the better? Institutional distance and information blurring in a political agency model," Mo.Fi.R. Working Papers 146, Money and Finance Research group (Mo.Fi.R.) - Univ. Politecnica Marche - Dept. Economic and Social Sciences.
    15. Boadway, Robin & Tremblay, Jean-François, 2012. "Reassessment of the Tiebout model," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(11), pages 1063-1078.
    16. Antonio N. Bojanic & LaPorchia A. Collins, 2021. "Differential effects of decentralization on income inequality: evidence from developed and developing countries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 60(4), pages 1969-2004, April.
    17. Nadia Fiorino & Emma Galli & Fabio Padovano, 2015. "How long does it take for government decentralization to affect corruption?," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 273-305, August.
    18. Andreas P. Kyriacou & Leonel Muinelo-Gallo & Oriol Roca-Sagalés, 2015. "Regional inequalities, fiscal decentralization and government quality: empirical evidence from simultaneous equations," Working Papers. Collection A: Public economics, governance and decentralization 1501, Universidade de Vigo, GEN - Governance and Economics research Network.
    19. Changwony, Frederick Kibon & Paterson, Audrey S., 2019. "Accounting practice, fiscal decentralization and corruption," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    20. Tristan Canare, 2022. "Decentralization and welfare: Evidence from a panel of countries," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(3), pages 767-796, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • P48 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies
    • R10 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General
    • R50 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - General
    • H70 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:presci:v:97:y:2018:i:3:p:801-826. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1056-8190 .

    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.