IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Does fiscal decentralization foster regional investment in productive infrastructure?

  • Andreas Kappeler

    ()

  • Albert Solé-Ollé
  • Andreas Stephan
  • Timo Välilä

Spending on productive infrastructure is seen as an important contributor to long term economic growth. Several authors have documented a downward trend in public investment during the last three decades and warned about its possible detrimental effects on the economy. A not well-realized fact is that productive infrastructure investment is mostly provided by sub-national governments. The aim of this paper is to analyze the effect of revenue decentralization on the provision of infrastructure at the sub-national level. We estimate the effects of revenue decentralization and earmarked grant financing on the level of sub-national infrastructure investment in 20 European countries over the period 1990-2009. The findings are compared to those obtained when using sub-national investment in redistribution, for which the theory predictions are different. To account for the high auto-correlation in the dependent variable, we apply a dynamic panel data approach. In particular, we use a Corrected Least Squares Dummy Variable (LSDVC) estimator with the lagged dependent variable included to account for the dynamic character of the dependent variable. The empirical analysis shows that decentralisation in terms of tax shares increases public investment in infrastructure; public investment in redistribution is not significantly affected by decentralisation. The positive link between total regional investment and decentralisation suggests that decentralisation on regional infrastructure investment is additional and does not go hand in hand with a considerable reduction in other types of regional investment, such as health, education or safety. As to investment grants, they have a positive impact on both types of regional investment. The negative interaction between investment grants and decentralisation for regional infrastructure investment suggest that the impact of tax decentralisation on regional infrastructure investment declines with increasing receipts of investment grants by regional governments. This result is intuitive. As the significance of the tax-decentralisation parameter suggests, higher regional decision autonomy leads to more investment in infrastructure. Attempts to undermine the power of regions through the backdoor - e.g. by introducing conditional transfers - will at least partly offset the positive effect of decentralisation.

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://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa12/e120821aFinal00062.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by European Regional Science Association in its series ERSA conference papers with number ersa12p60.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Oct 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p60
Contact details of provider: Postal: Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria
Web page: http://www.ersa.org

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. Borck, Rainald & Caliendo, Marco & Steiner, Viktor, 2006. "Fiscal Competition and the Composition of Public Spending: Theory and Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 2428, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  2. Germa Bel & Xavier Fageda, 2009. "Preventing competition because of 'solidarity': rhetoric and reality of airport investments in Spain," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2853-2865.
  3. Montolio, Daniel & Trillas, Francesc, 2013. "Regulatory federalism and industrial policy in broadband telecommunications," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 18-31.
  4. Diego Puga, 1996. "The Rise and Fall of Regional Inequalities," CEP Discussion Papers dp0314, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  5. Thiess Buettner & David E. Wildasin, 2002. "The Dynamics of Municipal Fiscal Adjustment," CESifo Working Paper Series 649, CESifo Group Munich.
  6. Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2000. "Incentives to provide local public goods: fiscal federalism, Russian style," Working Papers w0001, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
  7. Romp, Ward & de Haan, Jakob, 2005. "Public capital and economic growth: a critical survey," EIB Papers 2/2005, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
  8. Kiviet, Jan F., 1995. "On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 53-78, July.
  9. Bucovetsky, S., 2005. "Public input competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(9-10), pages 1763-1787, September.
  10. Hulten, Charles R. & Schwab, Robert M., 1997. "A fiscal federalism approach to infrastructure policy," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 139-159, April.
  11. VALILA, Timo & Kozluk, Tomasz & Mehrotra, Aaron, 2005. "Roads on a downhill? Trends in EU infrastructure investment," EIB Papers 1/2005, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
  12. Judson, Ruth A. & Owen, Ann L., 1999. "Estimating dynamic panel data models: a guide for macroeconomists," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 9-15, October.
  13. Hindriks, Jean J.G. & Peralta, Susana & Weber, Shlomo, 2007. "Competing in Taxes and Investment under Fiscal Equalization," CEPR Discussion Papers 6431, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  14. David Roodman, 2007. "A Note on the Theme of Too Many Instruments," Working Papers 125, Center for Global Development.
  15. Alejandro Esteller & Albert Solé, 2005. "Does decentralization improve the efficiency in the allocation of public investment? Evidence from Spain," Working Papers 2005/5, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
  16. Seabright, Paul, 1996. "Accountability and decentralisation in government: An incomplete contracts model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 61-89, January.
  17. Holtz-Eakin, Douglas & Schwartz, Amy Ellen, 1995. "Infrastructure in a structural model of economic growth," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 131-151, April.
  18. Pedro R.D. Bom & Jenny E. Ligthart, 2009. "How Productive is Public Capital? A Meta-Regression Analysis," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0912, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
  19. Rainald Borck, 2006. "Fiscal Competition, Capital-Skill Complementarity, and the Composition of Public Spending," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 61(4), pages 488-499, February.
  20. Romero-Ávila, Diego & Strauch, Rolf, 2008. "Public finances and long-term growth in Europe: Evidence from a panel data analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 172-191, March.
  21. Hans-Werner Sinn, 2004. "The New Systems Competition," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 5(1), pages 23-38, 02.
  22. Sam Bucovetsky & Michael Smart, 2002. "The Efficiency Consequences of Local Revenue Equalization: Tax Competition and Tax Distortions," CESifo Working Paper Series 767, CESifo Group Munich.
  23. Albert Solé-Ollé & Pilar Sorribas-Navarro, 2009. "The dinamic adjustment of local government budgets: does Spain behave differently?," Working Papers 2009/7, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
  24. Hayakawa, Kazuhiko, 2007. "Small sample bias properties of the system GMM estimator in dynamic panel data models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 32-38, April.
  25. KEEN, Michael & MARCHAND, Maurice, 1996. "Fiscal Competition and the Pattern of Public Spending," CORE Discussion Papers 1996001, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  26. Sebastian Hauptmeier & Ferdinand Mittermaier & Johannes Rincke, 2008. "Fiscal Competition over Taxes and Public Inputs: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 2499, CESifo Group Munich.
  27. Jeffrey Milyo & David M. Primo & Matthew L. Jacobsmeier, 2006. "Estimating the Impact of State Policies and Institutions with Mixed-Level Data," Working Papers 0603, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
  28. Bun, Maurice J. G. & Kiviet, Jan F., 2003. "On the diminishing returns of higher-order terms in asymptotic expansions of bias," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 145-152, May.
  29. Kappeler, Andreas & Välilä, Timo, 2008. "Fiscal federalism and the composition of public investment in Europe," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 562-570, September.
  30. Wallace Oates, 2005. "Toward A Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 349-373, August.
  31. Weingast, Barry R., 2009. "Second generation fiscal federalism: The implications of fiscal incentives," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 279-293, May.
  32. Santiago Lago-Peñas, . "Capital Grants and Regional Public Investment in Spain: Fungibility of Aid or Crowding-in Effect?," Studies on the Spanish Economy 162, FEDEA.
  33. Teresa Garcia-Milà & Therese McGuire, 2001. "Do Interregional Transfers Improve the Economic Performance of Poor Regions? The Case of Spain," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 281-296, May.
  34. Estache, Antonio & Sinha, Sarbajit, 1995. "Does decentralization increase spending on public infrastructure?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1457, The World Bank.
  35. Hehui Jin & Yingyi Qian & Barry Weingast, 1999. "Regional Decentralization and Fiscal Incentives: Federalism, Chinese Style," Working Papers 99013, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
  36. Padovano, Fabio, 2012. "The drivers of interregional policy choices: Evidence from Italy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 324-340.
  37. Sturm, Jan-egbert & Jacobs, Jan & Groote, Peter, 1999. "Output Effects of Infrastructure Investment in the Netherlands, 1853-1913," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 355-380, April.
  38. 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.
  39. Giovanni S.F. Bruno, 2005. "Estimation and inference in dynamic unbalanced panel data models with a small number of individuals," KITeS Working Papers 165, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Jun 2005.
  40. Kellermann, Kersten, 2007. "Debt financing of public investment: On a popular misinterpretation of "the golden rule of public sector borrowing"," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 1088-1104, December.
  41. Aaron Mehrotra & Timo Välilä, 2006. "Public Investment in Europe: Evolution and Determinants in perspective," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 27(4), pages 443-471, December.
  42. Zodrow, George R. & Mieszkowski, Peter, 1986. "Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation, and the underprovision of local public goods," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 356-370, May.
  43. Gonzalez Alegre, Juan & Kappeler, Andreas & Kolev, Atanas & Valila, Timo, 2008. "Composition of government investment in Europe: Some forensic evidence," EIB Papers 2/2008, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
  44. 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.
  45. Arellano, Manuel & Bond, Stephen, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 277-97, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa12p60. 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: (Gunther Maier)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.