IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa03p162.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Visibility of Burdens and Benefits of Public Revenue and Expenditure in OECD Countries with Two and Three Levels of Territorial Government

Author

Listed:
  • Miguel Roig-Alonso

Abstract

The size and pattern of any public budget depend, among other factors, on the visibility of both the burdens and benefits of public revenue and expenditure. Furthermore, such visibility is a necessary - not a sufficient - condition for an efficient allocation of resources between the private and public sectors of an economy. Although the importance of this visibility has been well known by academicians and practitioners for a long time, attempts to quantify it by taking the internal structure of every type of revenue and expenditure and its relative financial weight in a fiscal system into consideration are recent, and indicators used till now rest on several structural parameters, each of them ranging from to 1, which are combined in a multiplicative way. For this reason a estimate has always resulted as anyone of such factors was also 0. Starting from the same parameters, factors, and initial values, an alternative and more fruitful way to measure visibility of burdens and benefits of a public budget can consist of combining them in an additive instead of a multiplicative way. Then a null parametric value does not result in a estimate, and calculations can show higher final values which could be much more sensitive to the initial values of other parameters and factors. After six years of research in the scientific speciality of Fiscal Federalism, the aim of this contribution is to present, for the first time, new additive indicators applied to local, intermediate, and central territorial government levels in Austria, Canada, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and USA, and to compare them with estimates for the local and central territorial government levels in the remaining OECD countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Island, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom), by using data and essential information provided by the International Monetary Fund. The concurrence of several factors (such as non-coerciveness, non-existence of specific requitals, lack of information on concepts and quantities, partial shifting of burden by tax-payers, intergovernmental grants, etc.) explain why burden visibility values are still lower than 100.00. On the other hand, burden visibility values for the consolidated central government are higher than those estimated for the intermediate and local levels of same countries, mainly owing to significant grants received by the subcentral public administrations from central public administrations. Policy implications of these new estimates are straightforward for OECD countries: as both present revenue and benefit visibility are not near to 100.00 en general, allocation improvements could be obtained by implementing changes and reforms to raise values in general and by approaching these two types of budget visibility to such an optimal value. Other general and significant conclusions are offered for re-organization of territorial levels of governmnent in every country, devolution of powers, accountability, and optimization of sizes and patterns of public budgets.

Suggested Citation

  • Miguel Roig-Alonso, 2003. "Visibility of Burdens and Benefits of Public Revenue and Expenditure in OECD Countries with Two and Three Levels of Territorial Government," ERSA conference papers ersa03p162, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa03/cdrom/papers/162.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hamilton, Bruce W., 1983. "The flypaper effect and other anomalies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 347-361, December.
    2. Brennan,Geoffrey & Buchanan,James M., 2006. "The Power to Tax," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521027922, October.
    3. Becker, Gary S., 1985. "Public policies, pressure groups, and dead weight costs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 329-347, December.
    4. Bruno Frey & Werner Pommerehne, 1982. "How powerful are public bureaucrats as voters?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 253-262, January.
    5. Werner W. Pommerehne & Friedrich Schneider*, 1978. "Fiscal Illusion, Political Institutions, And Local Public Spending," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 381-408, August.
    6. Weingast, Barry R & Shepsle, Kenneth A & Johnsen, Christopher, 1981. "The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(4), pages 642-664, August.
    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. Miguel Roig-Alonso, 1998. "Elements for an economic assessment of intermediate territorial levels of government in European countries," ERSA conference papers ersa98p57, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Miguel Roig-Alonso, 1998. "Fiscal visibility in the european union member countries: New estimates," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 4(1), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Roig-Alonso, Miguel, 1999. "Visibility of public expenditure benefit in European Union member countries: new estimates," ERSA conference papers ersa99pa261, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Roig-Alonso, Miguel, 2000. "Visibility Of Burden And Benefit Of Public Revenue And Expenditure In European Union And U.S.A.: A Comparison," ERSA conference papers ersa00p42, European Regional Science Association.
    5. Miguel Roig-Alonso, 2000. "Visibility estimates of budgetary burden and benefit in European countries," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 6(2), pages 163-177, May.
    6. Facchini, Francois, 2014. "The determinants of public spending: a survey in a methodological perspective," MPRA Paper 53006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Miguel Roig-Alonso, 2001. "Budget burden and benefit visibility of European central level governments," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 7(2), pages 184-198, May.
    8. Lars Feld & Christoph Schaltegger, 2010. "Political stability and fiscal policy: time series evidence for the Swiss federal level since 1849," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 144(3), pages 505-534, September.
    9. Christian Bjørnskov & Axel Dreher & Justina Fischer, 2007. "The bigger the better? Evidence of the effect of government size on life satisfaction around the world," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 267-292, March.
    10. Gebhard Kirchgassner, 2002. "The effects of fiscal institutions on public finance: a survey of the empirical evidence," Chapters, in: Stanley L. Winer & Hirofumi Shibata (ed.), Political Economy and Public Finance, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Al-Jarhi, Mabid, 2016. "The Islamic Political System: A Basic Value Approach," MPRA Paper 72702, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    13. Melle Marco C., 2014. "Eine europäische Bemessungsgrundlage für die Körperschaftsteuer? Konzeption und ordnungsökonomische Analyse / Conceptual design and constitutional economics analysis of a European tax base for corpora," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 65(1), pages 133-156, January.
    14. Randall G. Holcombe & Jeffrey A. Mills, 1994. "Is Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform Revenue Neutral?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 22(1), pages 65-85, January.
    15. William C. Mitchell, 1990. "Interest Groups: Economic Perspectives and Contributions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 2(1), pages 85-108, January.
    16. Aaron Schneider, 2006. "Responding to fiscal stress: Fiscal institutions and fiscal adjustment in four Brazilian states," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 402-425.
    17. Christian Bjørnskov & Axel Dreher & Justina Fischer, 2008. "Cross-country determinants of life satisfaction: exploring different determinants across groups in society," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(1), pages 119-173, January.
    18. Arye L. Hillman & Heinrich W. Ursprung, 2016. "Where are the rent seekers?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 124-141, June.
    19. Timothy Besley & Anne Case, 2003. "Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(1), pages 7-73, March.
    20. Daniel E. Ingberman & Robert P. Inman, 1987. "The Political Economy of Fiscal Policy," NBER Working Papers 2405, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p162. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.