Chapter 8 – Maintaining taxes at the centre despite decentralization: Interactions with national reforms
Giorgio Brosio *, Juan Pablo Jiménez **
Local taxes might be expected to increase during decentralization processes, but this is often not the case. Taxation centralization may accompany policy and expenditure decentralization when national tax reforms, which are concomitant with decentralization processes, can pre-empt the space for local taxes; or because reliance by subnational governments on transfers from the central government looks more attractive to local politicians. This paper analyses these issues as a negotiation between central and subnational governments, focusing on the expenditure side of the budget. Decisions about (de)centralization of taxes are related to decisions and prospects about the uses of tax revenues. We first discuss the meaning of tax centralization and provide a review of the literature. We then discuss how efficiency gains in tax administration and electoral accountability for services provided locally can interact to produce decentralized expenditures and centralized taxation. These ideas are tested against evidence from Italy, Argentina, Bolivia and Canada and find support in the first two.
*Dipartimento di Economia, Università di Torino, firstname.lastname@example.org
**CEPAL, Santiago de Chile, JuanPablo.JIMENEZ@cepal.org
Paper prepared for insertion in the volume “Is decentralization good for development? Perspectives from Academics and Policy Makers”, edited by Jean-Paul Faguet and Caroline Pöschl. The paper was started during the stay of Juan Pablo Jiménez at International Center of Economic Research (ICER) in Torino between September-November 2010. Both authors express their gratitude to ICER for facilitating their joint work.
Ambrosanio, M.F. and M. Bordignon. 2006 Normative versus Positive Theories of Revenue Assignments in Federations, Ahmad E. and G. Brosio (eds.), Handbook of Fiscal Federalism. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Blankart, C. 2000. The Process of Government Centralization: A Constitutional View, Constitutional Political Economy, Volume 11, Number 1, 27-39,
Bolton, P. and G. Roland. 1997. The Breakup of Nations: A Political Economy Analysis, Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol. CXII Issue 4, November.
Brennan, G. and J. Buchanan. 1980. The Power to Tax. Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution, Cambridge University Press.
Breton, A. 1996. Competitive Governments. An Economic Theory of Politics and Public Finance. Cambridge University Press.
Brosio, G. 2007. “Cases for and Against Transparency/Obfuscation in Intergovernmental Relations”, Breton, A., G. Galeotti, P. Salmon, and R. Wintrobe, eds., The Economics of Transparency in Politics, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Cetrángolo, O. and J. P. Jiménez. 2004. The Relations Between Different Levels of Government in Argentina, Cepal Review, 84, December.
Channa, A. and J.P. Faguet. 2012. “Decentralization of Health and Education in Developing Countries: A Quality-Adjusted Review of the Empirical Literature.” LSE/STICERD Working Paper No. EOPP 38.
Chernick, H. and J. Tennant. 2010. Federal-State Tax Interactions in the United States and Canada Publius: The Journal of Federalism, pp. 1-26.
Chhibber P. and K. Kollman. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States, Princeton University Press.
Devoto, F. and J.P. Jiménez. 2000. “Argentina: Coordination of subnational borrowing”, Ahmad, E. and Tanzi, V. (ed), Managing Fiscal Decentralization, Routledge Studies in the Modern World Economy. (2000)
Diaz-Cayeros A. 2006. Federalism, fiscal authority, and centralization in Latin America, Cambridge University Press.
Enikolopov, R. and E. Zhuravskaya. 2007. Decentralization and political institutions, Journal of Public Economics, 91, pp. 2281-2290.
Faguet J.P. 2004. Why So Much Centralization? A Model of Primitive Centripetal Accumulation, STICERD – Development Economics Papers.
Faguet, J.P. 2014. “Can Sub-National Autonomy Strengthen Democracy in Bolivia?” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 44(1): 51-81; doi: 10.1093/publius/pjt020.
Faguet, J.P. and F.B. Wietzke. 2006. “Social Funds and Decentralization: Optimal Institutional Design.” Public Administration and Development, 26(4): 303-315.
Filippov M., O. Shvetsova and P. Ordeshook. 2004. Designing Federalism: A Theory Of Self-Sustainable Federal Institutions, Cambridge University Press.
Hepp, R and J. Von Hagen. 2000. Regional Risk-sharing and Redistribution in the German Federation Fordham Center for European Integration Studies (ZEI); Centre for Economic Policy Research, September.
Kincaid, J. and R. Cole. 2010. “Citizen Attitudes Towards Issues of Federalism in Canada, Mexico and the United States”, Publius: The Journal of Federalism; 41, 55-75.
Levi, M. 1998. Of Rule and Revenue, Berkeley: University of California Press.
McGuire, M. and M. Olson. 1996. “The economics of autocracy and majority rule: the invisible hand and the use of force”. Journal of Economic Literature, 34 (1), 72-96.
Mueller, D. C. 1989. Public Choice III, Cambridge University Press.
O’Neill, K. 2003. Decentralization as an Electoral Strategy, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 6,. N. 9, 1068-1091.
O’Neill, K. 2005. Decentralizing the State: Elections, Parties, and Local Power in the Andes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oates ,W. 1972. Fiscal Federalism, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Riker W. 1964. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance, Boston: Little Brown.
Rodden J. 2004. On the Migration of Fiscal Sovereignty. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37, pp 427-43.
Rodden J. and Wibbels E. 2010. Fiscal Decentralization And The Business Cycle: An Empirical Study Of Seven Federations, Economics and Politics, Vol. 22, March, pp. 37-67.
Treisman D. 2000. Decentralization and the Quality of Government, mimeo.
Winer, S. 2000. “On the reassignment of fiscal powers in a federal state”, G. Galeotti, P. Salmon and R. Wintrobe (eds.), The Political Economy of Collective Decisions, Cambridge University Press.