Social Indicators Research

, Volume 120, Issue 2, pp 411–435 | Cite as

Decentralization and the Welfare State: What Do Citizens Perceive?



Trust in public institutions and public policies are generally perceived as a precondition for economic recovery in times of recession. Recent empirical evidence tends to find a positive link between decentralization and trust. But our knowledge about whether decentralization—through increased trust—improves the perception of the delivery and effectiveness of public policies is still limited. In this paper we estimate the impact of fiscal and political decentralization on the perception of the state of the education system and of health services, by using the 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008 waves of the European social survey. The analysis of the views of 160,000 individuals in 31 European countries indicates that while the effect of fiscal decentralization on the perception of the state of the health and education system is unambiguously positive, political decentralization affects citizen’s satisfaction with education and health delivery in different ways. The influence of political decentralization, however, is highly contingent on whether we consider the capacity of the local or regional government to exercise authority over its citizens (self-rule) or to influence policy at the national level (shared-rule).


Education Health Satisfaction Fiscal and political decentralization Europe 



Luis Diaz-Serrano acknowledges the financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Grant # ECO2010-20829). Andrés Rodríguez-Pose is grateful for the support of the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement nº 269868. The usual disclaimer applies.


  1. Azfar, O., Kähkönen, S., Lanyi, A., Meagher, P., & Rutherford, D. (1999). Decentralization, governance and public services. The impact of institutional arrangements: A review of the literature. Working paper 255, IRIS Center, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  2. Barankay, I., & Lockwood, B. (2007). Decentralization and the productive efficiency of government: Evidence from Swiss cantons. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 1197–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjørnskov, C., Dreher, A., & Fischer, J. A. V. (2008a). On decentralization and life satisfaction. Economics Letters, 99(1), 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjørnskov, C., Dreher, A., & Fischer, J. A. V. (2008b). Cross-country determinants of life satisfaction: Exploring different determinants across groups in society. Social Choice and Welfare, 30, 119–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blendon, R., Leitman, R., Morrison, I., & Donelan, K. (1990). Satisfaction with health systems in ten nations. Health Affairs, 9(2), 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davoodi, H., & Zou, H. (1998). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: A cross-country study. Journal of Urban Economics, 43(2), 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Mello, L. (2011). Does fiscal decentralization strengthen social capital? Cross-country evidence and the experiences of Brazil and Indonesia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(2), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diaz-Serrano, L., & Meix-Llop, E. (2012). Do fiscal and political decentralization raise students’ performance? A cross country analysis. IZA Discussion Paper #6722, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  9. Diaz-Serrano, L., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). Decentralization, subjective well-being, and the perception of institutions. Kyklos, 65(2), 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dincer, O. (2010). Fiscal decentralization and trust. Public Finance Review, 38(2), 178–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donahue, J. D. (1997). Disunited states. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Ezcurra, R., & Pascual, P. (2008). Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: Evidence from several European Union countries. Environment and Planning A, 40(5), 1185–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feld, L. P., & Schnellenbach, J. (2011). Fiscal federalism and long-run macroeconomic performance: A survey of recent research. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(2), 224–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2002). Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 325–345.Google Scholar
  15. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, Economy and Institutions. The Economic Journal, 110(466), 918–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics: How the economy and institutions affect human well-being. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2005). Beyond outcomes: Measuring procedural utility. Oxford Economic Papers, 57(1), 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2012). The use of happiness research for public policy. Social Choice and Welfare, 38, 659–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gil Canaleta, C., Pascual Arzoz, P., & Rapún Gárate, M. (2004). Regional economic disparities and decentralization. Urban Studies, 41(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayek, F. von (1939). Economic conditions of inter-state federalism. New Commonwealth Quarterly, 131–149.Google Scholar
  21. Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Schakel, A. H. (2008). Regional authority in 42 democracies, 1950–2006. A measure and five hypotheses. Regional and Federal Studies, 18(2–3), 111–302.Google Scholar
  22. Iimi, A. (2005). Decentralization and economic growth revisited: An empirical note. Journal of Urban Economics, 57(3), 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klugman, J. (1994). Decentralization: A survey of literature from a human development perspective. United Nations Development Programme Occasional Paper #13, Human Development Report Office, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Kotakopri, K., & Laamanen, J. P. (2010). Welfare state and life satisfaction: Evidence from public health care. Economica, 77(307), 565–583.Google Scholar
  25. Kotzian, P. (2009). Value for money: health system efficiency and preferences for health care. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 729–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lago-Peñas, I., & Lago-Peñas, S. (2010). Decentralization and electoral accountability. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28, 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawrence, R. Z. (1997). Is it really the economy, stupid? In J. S. Nye, P. D. Zelikow, & D. C. King (Eds.), Why people don’t trust government (pp. 111–132). Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lessmann, C. (2009). Fiscal decentralization and regional disparity: Evidence from cross-section and panel data. Environment and Planning A, 41(10), 2455–2473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ligthart, J. E., & van Oudheusden, P. (2011). In government we trust: the role of fiscal decentralization, Tilburg University DP #2011-073. The Netherlands: Tilburg.Google Scholar
  30. Morelli, C., & Seaman, P. (2007). Devolution and inequality: A failure to create a community of equals? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgan, K. (2002). The English question: Regional perspectives on a fractured nation. Regional Studies, 36(7), 797–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mossialos, E. (1997). Citizens’ views on health care systems in the 15 member states of the European Union. Health Economics, 6, 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  34. Prud’homme, R. (1995). The dangers of decentralization. The World Research Observer, 10(2), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Bwire, A. (2004). The economic (in) efficiency of devolution. Environment and Planning A, 36(11), 1907–1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Ezcurra, R. (2010). Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(5), 619–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Ezcurra, R. (2011). Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(5), 619–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Gill, N. (2003). The global trend towards devolution and its implications. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(3), 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Gill, N. (2005). On the economic dividend of devolution. Regional Studies, 39(4), 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Sandall, R. (2008). From identity to the economy: analysing the evolution of the decentralisation discourse. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(1), 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sepúlveda, C., & Martínez-Vázquez, J. (2011). The consequences of fiscal decentralization on poverty and income inequality. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(2), 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thießen, U. (2003). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in high-income OECD countries. Fiscal Studies, 24(3), 237–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tselios, V., Rodríguez-Pose, A., Pike, A., Tomaney, J., & Torrisi, G. P. (2012). Income inequality, decentralisation, and regional development in Western Europe. Environment and Planning A, 44(6), 1278–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Praag, B., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, B. (2004). Happiness quantified: A satisfaction calculus approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Voigt, S., & Blume, L. (2009). The economic effects of federalism and decentralization—A cross-country assessment. CESifo Working Paper # 2766. Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  48. Wendt, C., Kohl, J., Mischke, M., & Pfeifer, M. (2010). How do Europeans perceive their healthcare system? Patterns of satisfaction and preference for state involvement in the field of healthcare. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CREIP—Departament d’EconomiaUniversitat Rovira i VirgiliReusSpain
  2. 2.Department of Geography and EnvironmentLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations