Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Statistics
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login

Are hard budget constraints for sub-national governments always efficient?

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Besfamille , Martin and Lockwood, Ben (2004) Are hard budget constraints for sub-national governments always efficient? Working Paper. University of Warwick, Department of Economics, Coventry.

[img]
Preview
PDF
WRAP_BESfamille_twerp717.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader

Download (477Kb)
Official URL: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/resear...

Abstract

In fiscally decentralized countries, sub-national governments (SNGs) may face soft budget constraints and consequently invest and borrow too much. The policy literature claims that, with competitive capital markets and central governments imposing hard budget contraints (HBCs), inefficient investment by SNGs should not arise. We present a model where this is not the case: HBCs can be too "hard" and discourage investment that is socially efficient. The model combines a dynamic commitment problem in Kornai, Maskin and Roland (2004) for central government with a moral hazard problem between central and SNG. The HBC over-incentivises the SNG to provide effort by penalizing it too much for project failure, thus leading ultimately to the possibility that socially efficient projects may not be undertaken.

Item Type: Working or Discussion Paper (Working Paper)
Subjects: J Political Science > JA Political science (General)
H Social Sciences > HJ Public Finance
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Economics
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Decentralization in government, Central-local government relations, Federal government -- Economic aspects, Local budgets
Series Name: Warwick economic research papers
Publisher: University of Warwick, Department of Economics
Place of Publication: Coventry
Date: 21 October 2004
Number: No.717
Number of Pages: 26
Status: Not Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version: Open Access
References: [1] Alesina, A. and E. Spolaore (1997), “On the Number and Size of Nations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1027-1056. [2] Azfar, O., S. Kähkönen and P. Meagher (2001), “Conditions for Effective Decentralized Governance: A Synthesis of Research Findings,” Working Paper 256, IRIS Center, University of Maryland. [3] Bardhan, P and D. Mookherjee (1998), “Decentralizing Anti-Poverty Program Delivery in Developing Countries,” Journal of Public Economics, Forthcoming. [4] Bardhan, P. and D.Mookherjee (2000), “Capture and Governance at Local and National Levels,” American Economic Review, 90, 135-139. [5] Besley, T. and S. Coate (2003), “Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach,” Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2611-2637. [6] Dewatripont, M. and E. Maskin (1995), “Credit and Efficiency in Centralized and Decentralized Economies,” Review of Economic Studies, 62, 541-555. [7] Ellingsen, T. (1998), “Externalities vs. Internalities: A Model of Political Integration,” Journal of Public Economics, 68, 251-268. [8] Faguet, J.-P. (2004), “Does Decentralization Increase Government Responsiveness to Local Needs? Evidence from Bolivia,” Journal of Public Economics, 88, 867-893. [9] Fisman, R. and R. Gatti (2000), “Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence Across Countries,” Journal of Public Economics, 83, 325-345. [10] Galiani, S., P. Gertler and E. Schargrodsky (2004), “Helping the Good Get Better, but Leaving the Rest Behind: How Decentralization Affects School Performance”, working paper, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella. [11] Goodspeed, T. (2002), “Bailouts in a Federation,” International Tax and Public Finance, 9, 409-421. [12] Hutter, J. and A. Shah (1998), “Applying a Simple Measure of Good Governance to the Debate on Fiscal Decentralization,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1894. [13] Inman, R. (2003), “Transfers and Bailouts: Enforcing Local Fiscal Discipline with Lessons from U.S. Federalism”, in Rodden, J., G. Eskeland, and J. Litvack (2003), Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints, The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachussets. [14] Kornai, J. (1980), Economics of Shortage, North-Holland, Amsterdam. [15] Kornai, J. (1986), “The Soft Budget Constraint”, Kyklos, 39, 3-30. [16] Kornai, J, E. Maskin and G. Roland (2004), “Understanding the Soft Budget Constraint,” Journal of Economic Literature, 41, 1095-1136. [17] Lane, T. (1993), “Market Discipline,” IMF Staff Papers, 40, 53-88. [18] Lockwood, B (2002), “Distributive Politics and The Costs of Decentralization,” Review of Economic Studies, 69, 313-337. [19] Melo, L. and M. Barenstein (2001), “Fiscal Decentralization and Governance: A Cross-Country Approach,” IMF Working Paper 01/71. [20] Montinola, G., Y. Qian and B. Weingast (1995), “Federalism, Chinese Style: The Political Basis for Economic Success in China,” World Politics, 48, 50-81. [21] Oates,W. (1972) Fiscal Federalism, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York. [22] Oates, W. (1999), “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism,” Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1120-1149. [23] Oberholzer-Gee, F and K. Strumpf (2002), “Endogenous Policy Decentralization: Testing the Central Tenet of Federalism,” Journal of Political Economy, 110, 1-36. [24] Qian, Y. and B. Weingast (1997), “Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 83-92. [25] Qian, Y. and G. Roland (1998), “Federalism and the soft-budget constraint”, American Economic Review, 88, 1146-1162. [26] Rodden, J., G. Eskeland, and J. Litvack (2003), Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints, The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. [27] Rodden, J. and S. Rose-Ackerman (1997), “Does Federalism Preserve Markets?,” Virginia Law Review, 83, 1521-1572. [28] Sanguinetti, P. and M. Tommasi (2004), “Intergovernmental transfers and fiscal behavior insurance versus aggregate discipline,” Journal of International Economics, 62, 149-170. [29] Seabright, P (1996), “Accountability and Decentralization in Government: an Incomplete Contracts Model”, European Economic Review, 40, 61-91. [30] Ter-Minassian, T. (1997), “Decentralization and Macroeconomic Management”, IMF Working Paper 97/155. [31] Ter-Minassian, Albino-War, and Singh (2004), “Managing Sub-National Borrowing”, unpublished paper, IMF. [32] Treisman, D. (2002), “Decentralization and the Quality of Government,” unpublished paper, Department of Political Science, UCLA: [33] Wallis, J. and Oates, W. (1988), “Decentralization in the Public Sector: an Empirical Study of State and Local Government”, in Rosen, H. (ed.), Fiscal Federalism: Quantitative Studies, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. [34] Weingast, B. (1995), “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Growth,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 11, 1-31. [35] Wildasin, D. (1997), “Externalities and Bailouts Hard and Soft Budget Constraints in Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations”, mimeo, Vanderbilt University. [36] World Bank (2000), Entering the 21st Century, World Development Report.
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/1473

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Document Downloads

More statistics for this item...
twitter

Email us: publications@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us