IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2010-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reforming Taxation in the Scotland Act (1998): Hard Budget Constraints and the Inadequacy of the Calman Commission Proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Hallwood

    (University of Connecticut)

Abstract

We demonstrate that both the Barnett formula used to calculate changes in public spending by the Scottish Parliament and Government under the Scotland Act (1998), as well as the recent Calman Commission proposals for fiscal reform, are soft budget constraints that do not and will not encourage the Scottish Government and Parliament to promote economic growth in Scotland and do not offer true accountability. However, fiscal autonomy would offer a hard budget constraint, and would encourage the adoption of policies aimed at growing the Scottish tax base and make the Scottish polity truly accountable. Secondly, fiscal autonomy is argued to be a viable fiscal reform within the existing and continuing UK constitutional settlement. Thirdly, existing empirical studies in-so-far as they relate to the Scottish case are shown to largely support the case for tax devolution.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Hallwood, 2010. "Reforming Taxation in the Scotland Act (1998): Hard Budget Constraints and the Inadequacy of the Calman Commission Proposals," Working papers 2010-19, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2010-19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://media.economics.uconn.edu/working/2010-19.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Josep Lluís Carrion-i-Silvestre & Marta Espasa & Toni Mora, 2008. "Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth in Spain," Public Finance Review, , vol. 36(2), pages 194-218, March.
    2. Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge & McNab, Robert M., 2003. "Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 1597-1616, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Sala-i-Martin, Xavier, 1997. "I Just Ran Two Million Regressions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 178-183, May.
    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. Petracco, Carly K. & Pender, John, 2009. "Evaluating the impact of land tenure and titling on access to credit in Uganda:," IFPRI discussion papers 853, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Peterman, Amber & Quisumbing, Agnes & Behrman, Julia & Nkonya, Ephraim, 2010. "Understanding gender differences in agricultural productivity in Uganda and Nigeria," IFPRI discussion papers 1003, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    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. 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.
    2. Matthew Higgins & Andrew Young & Daniel Levy, 2009. "Federal, state, and local governments: evaluating their separate roles in US growth," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 493-507, June.
    3. ESTEBAN, Sonia & DE FRUTOS, Pablo & PRIETO; Maria Jose, 2008. "Fiscal Decentralization And Economic Growth. Empiric Evidence From A Regional Perspective," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 8(1), pages 29-58.
    4. Muhammad Shahid & Rukhsana Kalim, 2020. "Decentralized Tax Revenue, Institutional Complementarity and Economic Growth: A Time Series Analysis of Pakistan," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 10(4), pages 25-33.
    5. Umaima Arif & Eatzaz Ahmad, 2018. "A Framework For Analyzing The Impact Of Fiscal Decentralization On Macroeconomic Performance, Governance And Economic Growth," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(01), pages 3-39, May.
    6. Pierre Salmon, 2013. "Decentralization and growth: what if the cross-jurisdiction approach had met a dead end?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 87-107, June.
    7. Maria Teresa Balaguer‐Coll & Isabel Narbón‐Perpiñá & Jesús Peiró‐Palomino & Emili Tortosa‐Ausina, 2022. "Quality of government and economic growth at the municipal level: Evidence from Spain," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 96-124, January.
    8. Pankaj C. Patel & Marcus T. Wolfe, 2022. "Of free markets and a secular mind: the value of economic decentralization and individual secular values in entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 93-119, January.
    9. Asatryan, Zareh & Feld, Lars P., 2015. "Revisiting the link between growth and federalism: A Bayesian model averaging approach," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 772-781.
    10. Bartolini, David & Ninka, Eniel & Santolini, Raffaella, 2017. "Tax Decentralisation, Labour productivity and Employment," MPRA Paper 81070, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Francisco J. Delgado, 2021. "On the Determinants of Fiscal Decentralization: Evidence From the EU," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 23(56), pages 206-206, February.
    12. Juan González-Alegre, 2015. "Does fiscal decentralization affect the effectiveness of intergovernmental grants? European regional policy and Spanish autonomous regions," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(4), pages 817-847, November.
    13. Fritz Breuss & Markus Eller, 2004. "Decentralising the public sector: Fiscal Decentralisation and Economic Growth: Is there Really a Link?," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(1), pages 3-9, October.
    14. Nuta Alina Cristina & Nuta Florian Marcel, 2013. "Analiza Relatiei Dintre Descentralizarea Fiscala Si Cresterea Economica In Romania," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 2, pages 204-209, April.
    15. Carlos Usabiaga & E. Macarena Hernández-Salmerón, 2016. "Regional Growth and Convergence in Spain: Is the Decentralization Model Important?," EcoMod2016 9358, EcoMod.
    16. Rao, B. Bhaskara, 2010. "Estimates of the steady state growth rates for selected Asian countries with an extended Solow model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 46-53, January.
    17. Cho, Seo-young & Vadlamannati, Krishna Chaitanya, 2010. "Compliance for big brothers: An empirical analysis on the impact of the anti-trafficking protocol," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 118, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    18. Jeffrey Frankel, 2014. "Mauritius: African Success Story," NBER Chapters, in: African Successes, Volume IV: Sustainable Growth, pages 295-342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Roger M. Cooke & Harry Joe & Bo Chang, 2020. "Vine copula regression for observational studies," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 104(2), pages 141-167, June.
    20. Balima, Hippolyte Weneyam, 2020. "Coups d’état and the cost of debt," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 509-528.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Barnett formula; Calman Commission; fiscal autonomy; fiscal federalism; non-cooperative game; regional finance; Scottish Executive; Scottish Parliament; secession.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uct:uconnp:2010-19. 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: Mark McConnel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuctus.html .

    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.