Advertisement

Financial Control

  • Andreas Ladner
  • Nicolas Keuffer
  • Harald Baldersheim
  • Nikos Hlepas
  • Pawel Swianiewicz
  • Kristof Steyvers
  • Carmen Navarro
Chapter
Part of the Governance and Public Management book series (GPM)

Abstract

This chapter analyses regulations and practices related to the financial aspects of local autonomy. It refers to fiscal federalism theory but it also shows that European practice differs from the assumption of the theory. It discusses how basis of financial autonomy is defined and protected by the European Charter of Local Government. The analysis includes the structure of local revenues, discretion of local tax policies, intergovernmental transfers and regulation of local government borrowing. The chapter presents both variation among European countries and dynamics of changes in the 1990–2014 period. It finds out that overall trend has been an increase of local autonomy, especially visible in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which used to be very strongly centralised at the beginning of the analysed period. The trend has stopped as a reaction to the 2008 economic crises which brought re-centralisation of the finance regulations in many countries, especially those related to local borrowing.

Keywords

Local government Fiscal decentralisation Local taxes Intergovernmental transfers Borrowing 

References

  1. Bahl, R. (2007). Benefits, Costs and Rules of Fiscal Decentralization. In R. Ebel & G. Peteri (Eds.), The Kosovo Decentralization Briefing Book. Budapest-Pristina: Open Society Institute-LGI I Kosovo Foundation for Open Society.Google Scholar
  2. Bahl, R. W. (2010). Conditional Versus Unconditional Grants: The Case of Developing Countries. In J. Kim, J. Lotz, & N. J. Mau (Eds.), General Grants Versus Earmarked Grants: Theory and Practice. Albertslund-Seul: The Korea Institute of Public Finance and The Danish Ministry of Interior and Health.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, R. J. (1980). The Geography of Public Finance: Welfare Under Fiscal Federalism and Local Government Finance. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  4. Blöchliger, H. (2013). Measuring Decentralisation: The OECD Fiscal Decentralisation Database. In J. Kim, J. Lotz, & H. Blöchliger (Eds.), Measuring Fiscal Decentralisation. Concepts and Policies (pp. 15–35). Paris: OECD and Korea Institute of Public Finance.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blöchliger, H., & King, D. (2007). Less Than You Thought: The Fiscal Autonomy of Sub-central Governments. OECD Economic Studies, 2006(2), 155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blöchliger, H., & Petzold, O. (2009). Finding the Dividing Line Between Tax Sharing and Grants: A Statistical Investigation. Paris: OECD Network on Fiscal Relations Across Levels of Government Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/tax/federalism/43072896.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. Boerboom, H., & Huigsloot, P. (2010). Earmarked General Grants and General Earmarked Grants in the Netherlands. In J. Kim, J. Lotz, & N. J. Mau (Eds.), General Grants Versus Earmarked Grants: Theory and Practice (pp. 394–414). Albertslund-Seul: The Korea Institute of Public Finance and The Danish Ministry of Interior and Health.Google Scholar
  8. Borge, L. E., & Lilleschulstadt, G. (2010). General Grants and Earmarked Grants in Norway. In J. Kim, J. Lotz, & N. J. Mau (Eds.), General Grants Versus Earmarked Grants: Theory and Practice (pp. 191–217). Albertslund-Seul: The Korea Institute of Public Finance and The Danish Ministry of Interior and Health.Google Scholar
  9. Dafflon, B. (2002). The Theory of Subnational Balanced Budget and Debt Control. In B. Dafflon (Ed.), Local Public Finance in Europe: Balancing the Budget and Controlling Debt, Studies in Fiscal Federalism and State-Local Finance Series. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Heinelt, H., Hlepas, N., Kuhlmann, S., & Swianiewicz, P. (2018). Local Government Systems: Capturing the Institutional Setting in Which Mayors Have to Act. In H. Heinelt, A. Magnier, M. Cabria, & H. Reynaert (Eds.), Political Leaders and Changing Local Democracy. The European Mayor (in print). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. King, D. S. (1984). Fiscal Tiers: The Economics of Multi-Level Government. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Lotz, J. (2011). Policies of Earmarking Grants to Sub-national Governments. In N. Bosch & A. Ole-Solle (Eds.), IEB’s World Report on Fiscal Federalism ’10. Barcelona: Institut d’Economia de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  13. Lotz, J. (2013). On the OECD Taxonomy of Grants. In J. Kim, J. Lotz, & H. Blöchliger (Eds.), Measuring Fiscal Decentralization: Concepts and Policies. Paris: OECD and Korea Institute of Public Finance.Google Scholar
  14. Martinez-Vazques, J., & Timofeev, A. (2011, March 10–11). Decentralization Measures Revisited. Paper Presented at Conference on Taxonomy of Grants and Measurement of Fiscal Decentralization, Paris.Google Scholar
  15. Musgrave, R. (1959). The Theory of Public Finance. New York: MacGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Oates, W. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovic.Google Scholar
  17. Rattsø, J. (2005). Local Tax Financing in the Nordic Countries. Yearbook of Nordic Tax Research, 33–50. https://www.energica.no/_yearbook-fornordic-tax-research-2005-robert-pahlsson-9788215008608.
  18. Spahn, B. (2013). Measuring Decentralization of Public Sector Activities: Conceptual Issues and the Case of Germany. In J. Kim, J. Lotz, & H. Blöchliger (Eds.), Measuring Fiscal Decentralisation. Concepts and Policies (pp. 89–100). Paris: OECD and Korea Institute of Public Finance.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tiebout, C. (1956). A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Ladner
    • 1
  • Nicolas Keuffer
    • 1
  • Harald Baldersheim
    • 2
  • Nikos Hlepas
    • 3
  • Pawel Swianiewicz
    • 4
  • Kristof Steyvers
    • 5
  • Carmen Navarro
    • 6
  1. 1.IDHEAPUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  4. 4.Department of Local Development and Policy, Faculty of Geography and Regional StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarszawaPoland
  5. 5.Department of Political ScienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Political ScienceUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations