No abstract

The paper deals with comparison of fiscal decentralization systems in EU-27 according to selected quantitative criteria and certain European Charter of Local Self-Government principles. The results of comparative analysis show that a higher number of lower levels of government usually indicate a greater share of local finance within the total public finance, however, this finding does not confirm the inverse link. Even though the structure of expenditures in EU-27 countries is quite similar, the shares of funds for the implementation of individual tasks and competencies differ significantly from country to country. On average, the countries allocate most funds to education, social security, healthcare, administration and political systems, with only a quarter of the countries recording the same or higher amounts of revenues than expenditures. Most of the countries still cover the existing deficit either through transfers from the central to lower levels of government or through equalisation schemes or borrowing, which otherwise represents a departure from one of the basic principles of the Charter, which stipulates that financial resources must be commensurate with the responsibilities of local self-government.

The paper presents a direct international comparison of the existing fi scal decentralization systems of European Union member states (hereinafter EU-28), which are also signatories of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (hereinafter ECLSG or Charter). The results of the benchmarking show that the conceptual index of fi scal decentralization (hereinafter CIFD) is an appropriate tool for direct international comparison of different fi scal decentralization systems, while allowing measurements of their effectiveness, as there is a direct link between the CIFD and the basic principles of the ECLSG. The CIFD is an upgrade of classical methods (indicators) used to measure fi scal decentralization, and, at the same time, refl ects the consideration of the selected basic principles of the ECLSG. The CIFD consists of fi ve indicators, four of which represent quantifi ed selected basic principles of the ECLSG, and the fi fth indicator represents the number of lower management levels. Thus, with the use of CIFD, the EU-28 obtained defi nite levels of fi scal decentralization, while, due to the established direct link between the CIFD and the ECLSG guidelines, the indices in the index structure themselves indicated either greater or lesser compliance of their fi scal decentralization systems with the selected basic principles of the Charter. The paper concludes with a simulation of an empirical conceptual model of fi scal decentralization (hereinafter CMFD) which is now offering the opportunity to identify critical points or shortcomings of the existing fi scal decentralization system in each country, limiting or even eliminating them with the aim of achieving a highly effi cient system of fi scal decentralization.

The paper examines whether the system implemented for financing local communities (municipalities) in Slovenia in the period 2010-2016 is compliant with the European Charter of Local Self-Government. We examined the cost coverage for performing the tasks of municipalities, the cost structure and the rate of interconnections between the budgeted funds under the eligible expenditure mechanism and the data collected on costs by municipality. Our hypothesis states that the principles whereby funding would be commensurate with tasks were not fulfilled in the period between 2010 and 2016 in the Republic of Slovenia given that the average per capita costs exceeded the funding under eligible expenditure. The discrepancy had increased from the previously examined period of 2007-2009. The findings show that although the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government have been satisfactorily included in the country’s laws, certain discrepancies have been found with regard to funding where the principle of municipal funding had not adequately been taken into account to ensure that funding is commensurate with the tasks. Between 2010 and 2016, municipalities received less funding than the scope of their tasks would require. The situation deteriorated in 2010–2016with respect to the 2007–2009 period when the existing funding model was introduced. The municipal funding model should be improved so that the eligible expenditure calculation takes into account in real time the real costs needed to perform the tasks of local communities; and the cost structure should be made more homogeneous. The model should be changed to consider and enable the performance of development tasks of municipalities through investments.

V prispevku se ukvarjamo s primerjavo sistemov fiskalne decentralizacije držav skupine EU27 po izbranih kvantitativnih kriterijih v povezavi z nekaterimi temeljnimi načeli MELLS. Rezultati kažejo, da večje število nižjih ravni upravljanja običajno nakazuje tudi večji delež lokalnih financ v celotnih javnih financah, vendar ta ugotovitev ne potrjuje tudi obratne povezave. Največji delež sredstev za lokalne zadeve namenjajo na Danskem, sledijo Švedska, Finska in Španija, najmanj pa v Grčiji in na Cipru. Čeprav je struktura odhodkov po državah EU27 precej podobna, so deleži sredstev za izvajanje posameznih nalog in pristojnosti med državami bolj raznoliki. V povprečju države največ namenjajo za izobraževanje, socialno varnost, administracijo in zdravstvo, pri čemer zgolj četrtina držav beleži enake ali večje prihodke glede na odhodke, zato razliko pokrivajo bodisi prek transferjev, izravnalnih shem ali zadolževanja, kar pa pomeni odmik od načela MELLS -skladnosti virov s pristojnostmi. Ključne besede: fiskalna decentralizacija, mednarodna primerjava, lokalne finance AbstractThe purpose of this article is to compare systems of fiscal decentralization in EU member states according to selected quantitative criteria. The results indicate that a higher number of lower levels of government usually indicate a greater share of local finance; however, this finding does not confirm the inverse link. Although the structure of expenditures is similar, the shares of funds for the implementation of individual tasks differ significantly. On average, the countries allocate most funds to education, social security, healthcare, and administration, with only a quarter of the countries recording the same or higher amounts of revenues than expenditures. Most countries still cover the existing deficit through transfers from the central government, equalization schemes, or borrowed funds. Key words: fiscal decentralization, international comparison, local financing, local government UvodEvropske države že od začetka procesa integracije spremlja potreba po poenotenju in konvergenci pravnih, ekonomskih in družbenih vidikov življenja. Raznolikost, ki je sicer želena na področju specifičnih dejavnosti (npr. kulture, jezika ipd.), nima veliko zagovornikov, ko gre za ekonomske koristi združe-vanja ter poenotenja tržnih in administrativnih funkcij držav. V literaturi s področja fiskalne decentralizacije tako ni konsenza o tem, kako poenotiti med seboj sicer različne sisteme fiskalne decentraliziranosti držav. Kljub trenutno še nedoseženemu konsenzu glede poenotenja na evropski ravni se s tem vpraša-njem že dalj časa ukvarjajo države na nižjih ravneh upravljanja (regije, dežele, pokrajine, občine). Prvi korak je bil v preteklosti že storjen, in sicer s sprejetjem Prejeto