Advertisement

Comparative Economic Studies

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 633–660 | Cite as

Inter-regional Insurance and Redistribution – A Non-parametric Application to Russia

  • Simo Leppänen
Regular Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

The paper examines inter-regional insurance and redistribution of Russia's fiscal system from 1995 to 2007. We use non-parametric methods for robustness and to tackle econometric problems of endogeneity and poolability. We will also use several specifications of variables. We find that the Russian inter-regional insurance system should be considered a stabilizing scheme against tax income and budget expenditure shocks, rather than against gross product or population income shocks, as typically assumed in literature considering data of other countries. Furthermore, we find evidence that the differences in the insurance estimates are mainly due to Federation-wide policy changes rather than a result of asymmetric treatment of regions.

Keywords

inter-regional insurance Russia fiscal federalism non-parametric analysis 

JEL Classifications

P35 H77 C14 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Academy of Finland for research financing and Ilya Trounin, Mika Kortelainen, Mikael Linden, Pekka Ilmakunnas and two anonymous referees for valuable comments.

References

  1. Alexeev, M and Kurlyandskaya, G . 2003: Fiscal federalism and incentives in a Russian region. Journal of Comparative Economics 31 (1): 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arellano, M and Bond, S . 1991: Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies 58 (2): 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltagi, BH . 2005: Econometric analysis of panel data. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: West Sussex: England.Google Scholar
  4. Bayoumi, T and Masson, P . 1995: Fiscal flows in the United States and Canada: Lessons for monetary union in Europe. European Economic Review 39 (2): 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayoumi, T and Masson, P . 1998: Liability-creating versus non-liability-creating fiscal stabilisation policies: Ricardian equivalence, fiscal stabilisation and EMU. The Economic Journal 108 (449): 1026–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BOFIT (The Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition). 2009: First-half federal budget deficit smaller than expected. BOFIT Weekly 30/2009, Available at: http://www.suomenpankki.fi/bofit_en/seuranta/viikkokatsaus/vuosikirjat/Documents/we09.pdf.
  7. Desai, RM, Freinkman, L and Goldberg, I . 2005: Fiscal federalism in rentier regions: Evidence from Russia. Journal of Comparative Economics 33 (4): 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DiNardo, J and Tobias, JL . 2001: Non parametric density and regression estimation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association 15 (4): 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission. 1977a: The MacDougall Report: Report of the study group on the role of public finance in European integration. Vol. I. Economic and Financial Series A13, Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. 1977b: The MacDougall Report: Report of the study group on the role of public finance in European integration. Vol. II. Economic and Financial Series B13, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. Fatás, A . 1998: Does EMU need a fiscal federation? Economic Policy 13 (26): 163–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fujiki, H and Nakakuki, M . (2005): Asymmetric shocks and regional risk sharing: Evidence from Japan. Monetary and Economic Studies. Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan 23 (2): 31–60.Google Scholar
  13. Hsiao, C, Li, Q and Racine, JS . 2007: A consistent model specification test with mixed categorical and continuous data. Journal of Econometrics 140 (2): 802–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Im, KS, Pesaran, MH and Shin, Y . 2003: Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics 115 (1): 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jüssen, F . 2006: Interregional risk sharing and fiscal redistribution in unified Germany. Papers in Regional Science 85 (2): 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kadotchnikov, P, Sinelnikov-Murylyov, S, Trunin, I and Tchetverikov, S . 2003: Redistribution and stabilization of regional revenues in the Russian system of intergovernmental fiscal relations. ET Publications: Moscow Available at www.iet.ru.Google Scholar
  17. Kwon, G and Spilimbergo, A . 2009: Regional volatility in emerging countries. The case of Russia. Economics of Transition 17 (1): 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kurlyandskaya, G . 2007: Moscow and regions share Russia's oil and gas revenues. Federations 6 (1).Google Scholar
  19. Le Houerou, P and Rutkowski, M . 1996: Federal transfers in Russia: Their impact on regional revenues and incomes. Comparative Economic Studies 38 (2–3): 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levin, A, Lin, CF and Chu, CS . 2002: Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics 108 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, Q and Racine, JS . 2004: Cross-validated local linear nonparametric regression. Statistica Sinica 14 (2): 485–512.Google Scholar
  22. Lockwood, B . 1999: Inter-regional insurance. Journal of Public Economics 72 (1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maddala, GS and Wu, S . (1999): A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple approach. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61 (s1): 631–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martinez-Vazguez, J and Boex, J . 2001: Russia's transition to a new federalism, World Bank Institute Learning Resource Series. Washington DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mélitz, J . 2004: Risk sharing and EMC. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 4460, Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  26. Mélitz, J and Zumer, F . 2002: Regional redistribution and stabilization by the centre in Canada, France, the UK and the US: A reassessment and new tests. Journal of Public Economics 86 (2): 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oates, WE . 1999: An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature 37 (3): 1120–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Obstfeld, M and Peri, G . 1998: Regional non-adjustment and fiscal policy. Economic Policy 13 (26): 205–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Persson, T and Tabellini, G . 1996a: Federal fiscal constitutions: Risk sharing and moral hazard. Econometrica 64 (3): 623–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Persson, T and Tabellini, G . 1996b: Federal fiscal constitutions: Risk sharing and redistribution. The Journal of Political Economy 104 (5): 979–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pesaran, MH . 2007: A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics 22 (2): 265–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phillips, PCB and Su, L . 2011: Nonparametric structural estimation via continuous location shifts in an endogenous regressor. Econometrics Journal 14 (3): 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pisani-Ferry, J, Italianer, A and Lescure, R . 1993: Stabilisation properties of budgetary systems: A simulation analysis. European Economy: Reports and Studies 5: 511–538.Google Scholar
  34. Ponomarenko, A and Vlasov, S . 2010: Russian fiscal policy during the financial crisis. BOFIT Discussion Papers 12/2010.Google Scholar
  35. Racine, JS and Li, Q . 2004: Nonparametric estimation of regression functions with both categorical and continuous data. Journal of Econometrics 119 (1): 99–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosstat (State Committee of the Russian Federation on Statistics) Regional Rossi Database, various annual editions.Google Scholar
  37. Sala-i-Martin, X and Sachs, J . 1991: Fiscal federalism and optimum currency areas: Evidence for Europe from the United States. NBER wpno. 3855. Subsequently published In: Canzoneri, M, Grilli, V and Masson, P (eds). Establishing a Central Bank: Issues in Europe and Lessons from the US. Cambridge University Press: UK 1992.Google Scholar
  38. Sanguinetti, P and Tommasi, M . 2004: Intergovernmental transfers and fiscal behaviour insurance versus aggregate discipline. Journal of International Economics 62 (1): 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solanko, L and Tekoniemi, M . 2005: To recentralise or decentralise – some recent trends in Russian fiscal federalism. BOFIT Online 5/2005. Available at: www.bof.fi/bofit.
  40. Vigneault, M . 2002: The role of intergovernmental transfers in regional stabilization and equalization. Mimeo, Bishop's University.Google Scholar
  41. Von Hagen, J . 1992: Fiscal arrangements in a monetary union – Some evidence from the US. In: Fair, D and de Boissieu, C (eds). Fiscal Policy, Taxes, and the Financial System in an Increasingly Integrated Europe. Kluwer Academic: The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  42. Von Hagen, J . 1998: Fiscal policy and international risk-sharing. ZEI Working paper, B13, University of Bonn.Google Scholar
  43. Von Hagen, J and Hepp, R . 2000: Regional risk sharing and redistribution in the German Federation. ZEI Working paper. B15, University of Bonn.Google Scholar
  44. Wallich, CI . 1994: Russia and the challenge of fiscal federalism. World Bank: Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang, M-C and van Ryzin, J . 1981: A class of smooth estimators for discrete estimation. Biometrika 68 (1): 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Windmeijer, F . 2005: A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics 126: 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhuravskaya, E . 2000: Incentives to provide local public goods: Fiscal federalism, Russian style. Journal of Public Economics 76 (3): 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Comparative Economics 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simo Leppänen
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Markets in Transition, Aalto University School of EconomicsFinland

Personalised recommendations