IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/200605.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Declared vs. revealed yardstick competition:Local government efficiency in Norway

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper investigates whether the production efficiency of Norwegian local governments exhibits a spatial pattern that is compatible with the hy­pothesis of yardstick competition. In order to check whether yardstick com­petition is really responsible far the observed spatial pattern, and to rule out alternative theoretical explanations, the paper exploits unique information from a survey on Norwegian local governments, where local public officials are explicitly asked whether they compare their own performances in the provision of public services to those of other governments (benchmarking). Merging the latter information - "declared" yardstick competition - with the observed interdependence in local efficiency measures - "revealed" yardstick competition - the paper provides evidence that comparative performance evaluation generates spatial auto-correlation in local efficiency indicators.

Suggested Citation

  • Revelli Federico & Tovmo Per, 2006. "Declared vs. revealed yardstick competition:Local government efficiency in Norway," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 200605, University of Turin.
    • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:200605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2006dip/5_wp_revellitovmo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Revelli, Federico, 2006. "Performance rating and yardstick competition in social service provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 459-475, February.
    2. Aronsson, Thomas & Blomquist, Soren & Sacklen, Hans, 1999. "Identifying Interdependent Behaviour in an Empirical Model of Labour Supply," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 607-626, Nov.-Dec..
    3. Anselin, Luc & Bera, Anil K. & Florax, Raymond & Yoon, Mann J., 1996. "Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 77-104, February.
    4. Fried, Harold O. & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Shelton S. (ed.), 1993. "The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195072181.
    5. Salmon, Pierre, 1987. "Decentralisation as an Incentive Scheme," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 3(2), pages 24-43, Summer.
    6. Heyndels, Bruno & Vuchelen, Jef, 1998. "Tax Mimicking Among Belgian Municipalities," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 51(1), pages 89-101, March.
    7. Jorid Kalseth & Jørn Rattsø, 1998. "Political Control of Administrative Spending: The Case of Local Governments in Norway," Chapters, in: Jørn Rattsø (ed.), Fiscal Federalism and State–local Finance, chapter 11, pages 181-201, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. De Borger, B & Kerstens, K. & Moesen, W. & Vanneste, J., 1994. "Explaining Differences in Productive Efficiency: An Application to Belgian Municipalities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 80(3-4), pages 339-358, September.
    9. Heyndels, Bruno & Vuchelen, Jef, 1998. "Tax Mimicking Among Belgian Municipalities," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 51(n. 1), pages 89-101, March.
    10. repec:rus:hseeco:122160 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Davis, Michael L & Hayes, Kathy, 1993. "The Demand for Good Government," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(1), pages 148-152, February.
    12. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    13. Case, Anne C. & Rosen, Harvey S. & Hines, James Jr., 1993. "Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence : Evidence from the states," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 285-307, October.
    14. Moene, Karl O., 1986. "Types of bureaucratic interaction," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 333-345, April.
    15. Jan K. Brueckner, 2003. "Strategic Interaction Among Governments: An Overview of Empirical Studies," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 175-188, April.
    16. Bordignon, Massimo & Cerniglia, Floriana & Revelli, Federico, 2004. "Yardstick competition in intergovernmental relationships: theory and empirical predictions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 325-333, June.
    17. Besley, Timothy & Case, Anne, 1995. "Incumbent Behavior: Vote-Seeking, Tax-Setting, and Yardstick Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 25-45, March.
    18. Carol Propper & Deborah Wilson, 2003. "The Use and Usefulness of Performance Measures in the Public Sector," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 19(2), pages 250-267, Summer.
    19. Hanna Ågren & Matz Dahlberg & Eva Mörk, 2007. "Do politicians’ preferences correspond to those of the voters? An investigation of political representation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 137-162, January.
    20. Jørn Rattsø & Rune J. Sørensen, 2004. "Public Employees as Swing Voters: Empirical Evidence on Opposition to Public Reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(3_4), pages 281-310, June.
    21. Sole Olle, Albert, 2003. "Electoral accountability and tax mimicking: the effects of electoral margins, coalition government, and ideology," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 685-713, November.
    22. Helen F. Ladd, 1992. "Mimicking of Local Tax Burdens Among Neighboring Counties," Public Finance Review, , vol. 20(4), pages 450-467, October.
    23. Bivand, Roger & Szymanski, Stefan, 2000. "Modelling the spatial impact of the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 203-219, March.
    24. Geys, Benny, 2006. "Looking across borders: A test of spatial policy interdependence using local government efficiency ratings," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 443-462, November.
    25. Federico Revelli, 2005. "On Spatial Public Finance Empirics," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(4), pages 475-492, August.
    26. repec:bla:econom:v:62:y:1995:i:247:p:389-409 is not listed on IDEAS
    27. Nouriel Roubini & Jeffrey Sachs, 1989. "Government Spending and Budget Deficits in the Industrial Economies," NBER Working Papers 2919, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    28. Bivand, Roger & Szymanski, Stefan, 1997. "Spatial dependence through local yardstick competition:: theory and testing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 257-265, August.
    29. Babcock, Linda & Engberg, John & Greenbaum, Robert, 2005. "Wage spillovers in public sector contract negotiations: the importance of social comparisons," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 395-416, July.
    30. Ashworth, John & Heyndels, Bruno, 1997. "Politicians' preferences on local tax rates: An empirical analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 479-502, September.
    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. Revelli, Federico & Tovmo, Per, 2007. "Revealed yardstick competition: Local government efficiency patterns in Norway," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 121-134, July.
    2. Geys, Benny, 2006. "Looking across borders: A test of spatial policy interdependence using local government efficiency ratings," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 443-462, November.
    3. Revelli, Federico, 2006. "Performance rating and yardstick competition in social service provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 459-475, February.
    4. Kristien Werck & Bruno Heyndels & Benny Geys, 2008. "The impact of ‘central places’ on spatial spending patterns: evidence from Flemish local government cultural expenditures," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 32(1), pages 35-58, March.
    5. Caldeira, Emilie, 2012. "Yardstick competition in a federation: Theory and evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 878-897.
    6. Terra, Rafael & Mattos, Enlinson, 2017. "Accountability and yardstick competition in the public provision of education," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 15-30.
    7. Eric Dubois & Matthieu Leprince & Sonia Paty, 2007. "The Effects of Politics on Local Tax Setting: Evidence from France," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(8), pages 1603-1618, July.
    8. Raffaella SANTOLINI, 2007. "An Empitical Analysis of Political and Informative Trends on Municipalities of an Italian Region," Working Papers 294, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    9. Bordignon, Massimo & Cerniglia, Floriana & Revelli, Federico, 2003. "In search of yardstick competition: a spatial analysis of Italian municipality property tax setting," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 199-217, September.
    10. Michael P. Devereux & Simon Loretz, 2013. "What Do We Know About Corporate Tax Competition?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 66(3), pages 745-774, September.
    11. Federico Revelli, 2005. "On Spatial Public Finance Empirics," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(4), pages 475-492, August.
    12. Cassette, Aurélie & Paty, Sonia, 2008. "Tax competition among Eastern and Western European countries: With whom do countries compete?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 307-325, December.
    13. Masayoshi Hayashi & Wataru Yamamoto, 2017. "Information sharing, neighborhood demarcation, and yardstick competition: an empirical analysis of intergovernmental expenditure interaction in Japan," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 134-163, February.
    14. Massimo Bordignon & Floriana Cerniglia & Federico Revelli, 2002. "In Search for Yardstick Competition: Property Tax Rates and Electoral Behavior in Italian Cities," CESifo Working Paper Series 644, CESifo.
    15. Michela Redoano, 2007. "Fiscal Interactions Among European Countries. Does the EU Matter?," CESifo Working Paper Series 1952, CESifo.
    16. Lars P. Feld, 2006. "Regulatory Competition and Federalism in Switzerland: Diffusion by Horizontal and Vertical Interaction," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-22, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    17. Aurélie Cassette & Sonia Paty, 2006. "La concurrence fiscale entre communes est-elle plus intense en milieu urbain qu’en milieu rural ?," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 78, pages 5-30.
    18. Redoano, Michela, 2003. "Fiscal Interactions Among European Countries," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 680, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    19. Yihua Yu & Li Zhang & Fanghua Li & Xinye Zheng, 2013. "Strategic interaction and the determinants of public health expenditures in China: a spatial panel perspective," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 50(1), pages 203-221, February.
    20. Marcel Gérard & Laurent van Malderen, 2012. "Tax Interaction among Walloon Municipalities: Is there Room for Yardstick Competition, Intellectual Trend and Partisan Monopoly Effect?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4025, CESifo.

    More about this item

    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:uto:dipeco:200605. 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: Laura Ballestra or Cinzia Carlevaris (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.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.