IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nos/vgmu00/2013i4p99-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How decentralization affects efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditures: review of execution of delegated powers

Author

Listed:
  • E. Dobrolyubova

Abstract

This article reflects some results of the work undertaken by the expert working group on optimization of public expenditures in the area of governance which contributed to the overall efforts on evaluating efficiency of the federal budget expenditures and forming recommendations on the optimization of such expenditures in 2013. This evaluation was conducted jointly by the Russian Academy for National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) and National Research University - Higher School of Economics (NRU-HSE) in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Development, and other federal authorities.The article is focused on the influence of decentralization policies on the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending both in a broad context and in one, based on the practice of delegating some federal powers to the constituent entities (regions) of the Russian Federation.Analysis of the federal budget execution data as well as some public sectors statistics demonstrates that the practice of delegation of the Russian Federations powers to the sub-national level which was accompanied by relevant budgetary transfers (subventions) has led to an excessive growth of the federal budget expenditure on the relevant areas (as compared to the GDP growth for the same period and the growth of the federal budget expenditures on the public administration as a whole). At the same time -at least in the selected cases -the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending, including performance outputs have decreased aft er the delegation of powers took place. Decentralization based on the delegation of powers has also resulted in new functions aimed at controlling the effectiveness of the delegated authorities performance. As a result, total administrative costs have increased.Given these conclusions it is recommended to switch from the practice of delegating authority to the practice of reallocating certain powers among the levels of government with a parallel reallocation of the budget revenue sources. Such a reallocation should be based on a detailed profound review of the efficiency and effectiveness of decentralization in each particularsector, with both the options of further devolution and recentralization being considered.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Dobrolyubova, 2013. "How decentralization affects efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditures: review of execution of delegated powers," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 99-112.
    • Handle: RePEc:nos:vgmu00:2013:i:4:p:99-112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vgmu.hse.ru/data/2014/10/17/1099221953/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%204-2013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Sherry Xin & Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J. & Brown, Tara Larson, 2011. "Giving to government: Voluntary taxation in the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1190-1201, October.
    2. Li, Feng & Srinivasan, Suraj, 2011. "Corporate governance when founders are directors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 454-469.
    3. Oecd & Nea, 2012. "Intergovernmental organisation activities," Nuclear Law Bulletin, OECD Publishing, vol. 2011(2), pages 99-106.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Siren, Anu & Sørensen, Claus Hedegaard, 2015. "Immense changes in traffic – Considerable stability in discourses. Road speed in Danish parliamentary documents 1900–2010," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-7.
    2. Natalia Borzino & Enrique Fatas & Emmanuel Peterle, 2015. "In Gov we trust: Voluntary compliance in networked investment games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-21, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    3. Nadia Loukil & Ouidad Yousfi, 2022. "Do CEO’s traits matter in innovation outcomes?," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 375-403, September.
    4. Chia-Ying Chan & Iftekhar Hasan & Chih-Yung Lin, 2021. "Agency cost of CEO perquisites in bank loan contracts," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1221-1258, May.
    5. Asongu, Simplice A & Odhiambo, Nicholas M, 2019. "Governance,CO2 emissions and inclusive human development in Sub-Saharan Africa," Working Papers 25253, University of South Africa, Department of Economics.
    6. Joel Slemrod & Yulia Kuchumova, 2023. "Gifts to government," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 30(2), pages 453-492, April.
    7. Möhlmann, Axel, 2013. "Investor home bias and sentiment about the country benefiting from the tax revenue," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 31-46.
    8. Simplice A. Asongu & Nicholas M. Odhiambo, 2019. "Inclusive development in environmental sustainability in sub‐Saharan Africa: Insights from governance mechanisms," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 713-724, July.
    9. Raúl López-Pérez & Aldo Ramírez-Almudio, 2020. "Why people give to their governments: The role of outcome-oriented norms," Working Papers 2007, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    10. Serel, Doğan A., 2017. "A single-period stocking and pricing problem involving stochastic emergency supply," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 180-195.
    11. Kesternich, Martin & Löschel, Andreas & Römer, Daniel, 2016. "The long-term impact of matching and rebate subsidies when public goods are impure: Field experimental evidence from the carbon offsetting market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 70-78.
    12. Jun-Koo Kang & Jungmin Kim, 2020. "Do Family Firms Invest More than Nonfamily Firms in Employee-Friendly Policies?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1300-1324, March.
    13. Adhikari, Hari P. & Sutton, Ninon K., 2016. "All in the family: The effect of family ownership on acquisition performance," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 65-78.
    14. Sheheryar Banuri & Philip Keefer, 2016. "Mellowing with Tenure? Socialization Increases Prosocial Behavior in Public Organizations," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments in Organizational Economics, volume 19, pages 127-140, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    15. Roman M. Sheremeta & Neslihan Uler, 2021. "The impact of taxes and wasteful government spending on giving," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 355-386, June.
    16. Wehner, Nicholas & Mackay, Mary & Jennings, Sarah & van Putten, E.I. & Sibly, Hugh & Yamazaki, Satoshi, 2018. "When push comes to shove in recreational fishing compliance, think ‘nudge’," MarXiv 2fyuc, Center for Open Science.
    17. Li, Sherry Xin & Eckel, Catherine & Grossman, Philip J. & Brown, Tara Larson, 2015. "Directed giving enhances voluntary giving to government," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 51-54.
    18. Philip J. Grossman & Catherine C. Eckel, 2012. "Giving versus Taking: A “Real Donation” Comparison of Warm Glow and Cold Prickle in a Context-Rich Environment," Monash Economics Working Papers 20-12, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    19. Jones, Kristy, 2017. "Government or charity? Preferences for welfare provision by ethnicity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 72-77.
    20. Pickhardt, Michael & Prinz, Aloys, 2014. "Behavioral dynamics of tax evasion – A survey," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-19.

    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:nos:vgmu00:2013:i:4:p:99-112. 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: Irina A. Zvereva (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://vgmu.hse.ru/ .

    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.