IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_6013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Government Decentralization and International Government Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Rajeev K. Goel
  • Ummad Mazhar
  • Michael A. Nelson
  • Rati Ram

Abstract

Adding to the literature on the effects of government decentralization, this paper uses a large sample of individual responses from more than a hundred countries about public’s perceptions of government’s performance along various dimensions to study the relative influences of different types of decentralization, including fiscal decentralization, administrative decentralization, federalism, and aggregate decentralization. Our results show that fiscal and administrative decentralization are qualitatively alike in that greater decentralization in each case improves perceptions of the government performance. Federalist states’ performance and overall decentralization are viewed somewhat differently. With regard to tax administration particularly, fiscal and administrative forms of government decentralization result in better outcomes than overall decentralization. Finally, service industries and large firms, ceteris paribus, perceived government performance differently.

Suggested Citation

  • Rajeev K. Goel & Ummad Mazhar & Michael A. Nelson & Rati Ram, 2016. "Government Decentralization and International Government Performance," CESifo Working Paper Series 6013, CESifo Group Munich.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_6013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 1999. "The Quality of Government," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 222-279, April.
    2. Michael A. Nelson, 2013. "Corruption and the size of local governments: are they related?," Chapters,in: The Challenge of Local Government Size, chapter 4, pages 83-120 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Rajeev K. Goel & Michael A. Nelson, 2005. "Economic Freedom Versus Political Freedom: Cross-Country Influences On Corruption ," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 121-133, June.
    4. Ignacio Lago-Peñas & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2011. "The Political and Economic Consequences of Decentralization," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(2), pages 197-203, April.
    5. Ivanyna, Maksym & Shah, Anwar, 2014. "How close is your government to its people? Worldwide indicators on localization and decentralization," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), vol. 8, pages 1-61.
    6. Lorenz Blume & Stefan Voigt, 2011. "Federalism and decentralization—a critical survey of frequently used indicators," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 238-264, September.
    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. 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.
    9. Stefan Voigt & Lorenz Blume, 2012. "The economic effects of federalism and decentralization—a cross-country assessment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 229-254, April.
    10. Maddala,G. S., 1986. "Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521338257.
    11. Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2002. "Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 325-345, March.
    12. Salmon, Pierre, 1987. "Decentralisation as an Incentive Scheme," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 24-43, Summer.
    13. Andreas P Kyriacou & Oriol Roca-Sagalés, 2011. "Fiscal and political decentralization and government quality," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 29(2), pages 204-223, April.
    14. Stephen Knack & Philip Keefer, 1995. "Institutions And Economic Performance: Cross-Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(3), pages 207-227, November.
    15. Gerring, John & Thacker, Strom C., 2005. "Do Neoliberal Policies Deter Political Corruption?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(01), pages 233-254, January.
    16. Ebel, Robert D. & Yilmaz, Serdar, 2002. "On the measurement and impact of fiscal decentralization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2809, The World Bank.
    17. Federico Revelli, 2010. "Spend more, get more? An inquiry into English local government performance," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 185-207, January.
    18. Bodman, Philip & Campbell, Harry & Le, Thanh, 2012. "Public investment, taxation, and long-run output in economies with multi-level governments," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 1603-1611.
    19. World Bank, 2015. "Supporting Womens Agro-Enterprises in Africa with ICT," World Bank Other Operational Studies 21972, The World Bank.
    20. 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.
    21. Shah, Anwar & Thompson, Theresa, 2004. "Implementing decentralized local governance: a treacherous road with potholes, detours, and road closures," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3353, The World Bank.
    22. Faguet, Jean-Paul, 2014. "Decentralization and Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 2-13.
    23. Daniel Treisman, 2006. "Fiscal Decentralization, Governance, And Economic Performance: A Reconsideration," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 219-235, July.
    24. World Bank, 2015. "Governance Reforms of State-Owned Enterprises," World Bank Other Operational Studies 22749, The World Bank.
    25. 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.
    26. Fan, C. Simon & Lin, Chen & Treisman, Daniel, 2009. "Political decentralization and corruption: Evidence from around the world," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 14-34, February.
    27. Rajeev Goel & Michael Nelson, 2011. "Government fragmentation versus fiscal decentralization and corruption," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 471-490, September.
    28. Kunicov , Jana & Rose-Ackerman, Susan, 2005. "Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(04), pages 573-606, October.
    29. Lars P Feld & Jan Schnellenbach, 2011. "Fiscal Federalism and Long-Run Macroeconomic Performance: A Survey of Recent Research," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(2), pages 224-243, April.
    30. Antonis Adam & Manthos Delis & Pantelis Kammas, 2014. "Fiscal decentralization and public sector efficiency: evidence from OECD countries," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 17-49, February.
    31. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Nicholas Gill, 2003. "The Global Trend towards Devolution and its Implications," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 21(3), pages 333-351, June.
    32. Panizza, Ugo, 1999. "On the determinants of fiscal centralization: Theory and evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 97-139, October.
    33. Knack, Stephen & Keefer, Philip, 1995. "Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross-Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Indicators," MPRA Paper 23118, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    34. Guccio, Calogero & Pignataro, Giacomo & Rizzo, Ilde, 2014. "Do local governments do it better? Analysis of time performance in the execution of public works," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 237-252.
    35. Mary Hallward-Driemeier & Lant Pritchett, 2015. "How Business Is Done in the Developing World: Deals versus Rules," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 121-140, Summer.
    36. repec:hrv:faseco:30747160 is not listed on IDEAS
    37. Treisman, Daniel, 2000. "The causes of corruption: a cross-national study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 399-457, June.
    38. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Nicholas Gill, 2003. "The global trend towards devolution and its implications," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 21(3), pages 333-351, June.
    39. Johann Graf Lambsdorff, 2006. "Causes and Consequences of Corruption: What Do We Know from a Cross-Section of Countries?," Chapters,in: International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    40. 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.
    41. Keith Blackburn, 2012. "Corruption And Development: Explaining The Evidence," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 80(4), pages 401-428, July.
    42. Goel, Rajeev K & Nelson, Michael A, 1998. "Corruption and Government Size: A Disaggregated Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 97(1-2), pages 107-120, October.
    43. Kotera, Go & Okada, Keisuke & Samreth, Sovannroeun, 2012. "Government size, democracy, and corruption: An empirical investigation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 2340-2348.
    44. Jan K. Brueckner, 2003. "Strategic Interaction Among Governments: An Overview of Empirical Studies," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 175-188, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Christl, Michael & Köppl-Turyna, Monika & Kucsera, Dénes, 2018. "Public sector efficiency in Europe: Long-run trends, recent developments and determinants," Working Papers 14, Agenda Austria.
    3. Chaudhry, Ahmed & Mazhar, Ummad, 2018. "Political competition and economic performance: Empirical evidence from Pakistan," Economics Discussion Papers 2018-27, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    fiscal decentralization; administrative decentralization; federalism; aggregate decentralization; government; tax administration; business permits;

    JEL classification:

    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H70 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - General
    • K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - 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:ces:ceswps:_6013. 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: (Klaus Wohlrabe). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.