The scope of fiscal decentralisation in EU countries: a comparative analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2024.015Keywords
decentralisation, public finances, public expenditure, European Union, fiscal decentralisationAbstract
Motivation: Decentralization is one of the main challenges in public sector reform. In democratic countries the level of decentralisation in individual countries is not identical. The varying scope of decentralization affects the quality, quick and efficient decision-making by public leaders.
Aim: Comparison of the extent of fiscal decentralisation in EU Member States; creation of groups of states with similar levels of decentralisation; identification of characteristics of countries where the average level of decentralisation is similar.
Results: As a result of the study 4 clusters were created. The first includes centralized countries (small area, small population, e.g. Malta, Cyprus). The level of decentralization is a little bit higher in federal states and most of the countries that joined the EU in 2004 or later (cluster 2, the most numerous). Larger and more numerous countries are characterized by a higher level of decentralization (cluster 3, e.g. Italy, Poland, France). Clusters 4th is composed of the Nordic countries, i.e. in countries where a welfare state model with an extensive public sector has been implemented. As a result, it was found that the level of decentralization is related to the size of the country, population and political system.
References
Brock, G., Pihur, V., Datta, S., & Datta, S. (2008). clValid: an R package for cluster validation. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(4), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i04.
Bulut, E., & Abdow, I. (2018). Decentralization and poverty reduction: opportunities and challenges in Kenya. Sosyoekonomi, 26(36), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2018.02.10.
Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V., & Niknafs, A. (2014). NbClust: an R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set. Journal of Statistical Software, 61(6), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v061.i06.
Chernov, S.I., Guryanova, L.S., Dymchenko, O.V., & Labunska, S. (2019). Complex of models of financial decentralisation analysis and assessment. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 3(30), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v3i30.179646.
Crook, R. (2003). Decentralisation and poverty reduction in Africa: the politics of local-central relations. Public Administration and Development, 23(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.261.
Eurostat. (2023). Retrieved 01.12.2022 from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.
Fontana, D. (2018). Federal decentralization. Virginia Law Review, 104(4), 727–796.
Gao, S., Meng, S., & Zhang, L. (2014). Fiscal decentralization and life satisfaction: evidence from urban China. Social Indicators Research, 119(3), 1177–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0552-z.
Guziejewska, B. (2018). Normative versus positive approach to fiscal decentralisation and the measures of decentralisation. Comparative Economic Research, 21(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.2478/cer-2018-0006.
Haček, M., & Grabner, A. (2013). Local sub-decentralization and sub-municipal divisions in Slovenia. Croatian & Comparative Public Administration, 13(1), 213–230.
Halásková, M. (2015). Public administration in EU countries: selected comparative approaches. Central European Review of Economic Issues, 18, 45–58.
Han, J., Kamber, M., & Pei, J. (2012). Data mining: concepts and techniques (3rd ed.). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-61819-5.
Handl, J., Knowles, K., & Kell, D. (2005) Computational cluster validation in post-genomic data analysis. Bioinformatics, 21(15), 3201–3212. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti517.
Karnowski, J., & Rzońca, A. (2021). Financing framework for local governments: diagnosis and change proposals. Ekonomia i Prawo. Economics and Law, 20(4), 797–812. https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2021.047.
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P.J. (1990). Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316801.
Kharinov, M. (2012). Reclassification formula that provides to surpass K-means method. arXiv:1209.6204. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1209.6204.
Kyriacou, A., Muinelo-Gallo, L., & Roca-Sagalés, O. (2017). Regional inequalities, fiscal decentralization and government quality. Regional Studies, 51(6), 945–957. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1150992.
Laboutková, Š., Bednářová, P., & Valentová, V. (2016). Economic inequalities and the level of decentralization in European countries: cluster analysis. Comparative Economic Research, 19(4), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/cer-2016-0028.
Lawson, R.G., & Jurs, P.C. (1990) New index for clustering tendency and its application to chemical problems. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 30(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci00065a010.
Loughlin, J. (2000). Regional autonomy and state paradigm shifts in Western Europe. Regional & Federal Studies, 10(2), 10–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597560008421118.
Maličká, L., & Martinková, S. (2018). Fiscal decentralization determinants: analysis of the EU countries´ clustered sample in period 1995–2015. E&M: Ekonomie a Management, 21(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2018-2-011.
Marks-Bielska, R., Lizińska, W., Wojarska, M., & Babuchowska, K. (2020). Institutional efficiency versus stability of local governments in basic areas of activity: the case of Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 15(3), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2020.021.
Mauro, L., Pigliaru, F., & Carmeci, G. (2018). Decentralization and growth: do informal institutions and rule of law matter. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(5), 873–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2018.05.003.
Poitevin, M. (2000). Can the theory of incentives explain decentralization. Canadian Journal of Economics. Revue Canadienne d`Economique, 33(4), 878–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/0008-4085.00046.
Rollnik-Sadowska, E., & Dąbrowska, E. (2018). Cluster analysis of effectiveness of labour market policy in the European Union. Oeconomia Copernicana, 9(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2018.008.
Sanogo, T. (2019). Does fiscal decentralization enhance citizens’ access to public services and reduce poverty: evidence from Côte d’Ivoire municipalities in a conflict setting. World Development, 113, 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.008.
Săraru, C. (2018). Considerations about administrative decentralization and local autonomy in Romania. Juridical Tribune, 8(2), 596–607.
Sekuła, A., & Śmiechowicz, J. (2016). Systems of general grants for local governments in selected EU countries against the background of the general theory of fiscal policy. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 11(4), 711–734. https://doi.org/10.12775/EQUIL.2016.032.
Smoke, P. (2003). Decentralisation in Africa: goals, dimensions, myths and challenges. Public Administration and Development, 23, 7–16.
Stein, E. (1999). Fiscal decentralization and government size in Latin America. Journal of Applied Economics, 2(2), 357–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.1999.12040543.
Suzuki, R., & Shimodaira, H. (2015). Pvclust: hierarchical clustering with p-values via multiscale bootstrap resampling. Retrieved 16.06.2023 from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pvclust.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Alicja Sekuła, Karol Flisikowski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 160
Number of citations: 0
