The performance of local government in the execution of public works
This paper aims at analysing the procurement of public works paying attention to the level of government involved. Such an issue has not received so far attention in the literature on fiscal federalism nor in the public works procurement literature. We focus the attention upon the execution stage of public works: indeed, their efficient provision and their capability to deliver the planned benefits are severely affected by the problems arising at the execution stage because of the incompleteness of the underlying contract. The main result is that local governments seem to be less efficient in the management of the execution process, suffering from longer delays than central government. This phenomenon is more severe for small municipalities and when the contract is mainly financed with external resources.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Barankay, Iwan & Lockwood, Ben, 2007.
"Decentralization and the productive efficiency of government: Evidence from Swiss cantons,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 91(5-6), pages 1197-1218, June.
- Barankay, Iwan & Lockwood, Ben, 2006. "Decentralization and the Productive Efficiency of Government: Evidence from Swiss Cantons," CEPR Discussion Papers 5639, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Barankay, Iwan & Lockwood, Ben, 2006. "Decentralization and the Productive Efficiency of Government: Evidence from Swiss Cantons," IZA Discussion Papers 2477, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- repec:wbk:wbpubs:27762 is not listed on IDEAS
- Yingyi Qian & Barry R. Weingast, 1997. "Federalism as a Commitment to Reserving Market Incentives," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 83-92, Fall.
- Yingyi Qian & Barry R. Weingast, 1997. "Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives," Working Papers 97042, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Wildasin, David E., 2004. "The Institutions of Federalism: Toward an Analytical Framework," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 57(2), pages 247-272, June.
- David E. Wildasin, 2004. "The Institutions of Federalism: Toward an Analytical Framework," Public Economics 0403006, EconWPA.
- Mariano Tommasi & Federico Weinschelbaum, 2007. "Centralization vs. Decentralization: A Principal-Agent Analysis," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(2), pages 369-389, 04.
- Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2002. "Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 325-345, March.
- Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2000. "Decentralization and corruption - evidence across countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2290, The World Bank.
- 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, 01.
- Bird, Richard, 1994. "Decentralizing infrastructure : for good or ill?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1258, The World Bank.
- 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.
- Antonio Estache & Marianne Fay, 2009. "Current Debates on Infrastructure Policy," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 27762, October.