No abstract

Abstract:In this paper we seek a robust methodology to measure the relative public spending efficiency of 19 OECD countries over the period 1980-2000. Based on the functional classification of government expenditure, we decompose total public spending into its separate accounts and we employ a semi-parametric method to obtain relative efficiency scores (for the separate accounts as well as for aggregate public spending). The econometric method isolates the impact of government inefficiency from the inefficiency arising from the socioeconomic environment or luck, thus leveling the playing field between the examined countries. The results suggest that the quality of governance is more important than the socioeconomic environment or luck. Finally, we propose a technique to measure the allocative efficiency of public spending, in an effort to proxy the optimal allocation of public funds when the governments set specific targets.

This paper empirically examines the relationship between fiscal decentralization and public sector efficiency. A country-level dataset is used to measure public sector efficiency in delivering education and health services and the new indices are regressed on well-established decentralization measures. The analysis is carried out for 21 OECD countries, between 1970 and 2000. Irrespective of whether public sector efficiency concerns education or health services, an inverted U-shaped relationship has been identified between government efficiency in providing these services and fiscal decentralization. This relationship is robust across several different specifications and estimation methods.

Globalization, Tax competition, Partisan politics, H20, H77,

This paper applies meta-regression analysis to the empirical literature that examines the impact of international market integration on capital taxation. The main objective is to explore whether particular data, model specification and estimation procedures exert systematic impact on the reported findings. Our results provide empirical evidence that differences across studies can be attributed to differences in the measurement of globalization. Moreover, in contrast to the conventional wisdom, study characteristics related to the measurement of the tax burden on capital appear to have an insignificant effect on the above mentioned relationship. Finally the meta-analysis fails to confirm a negative effect of globalization on the taxation of capital. JEL: F2, H2, H4. Keywords: capital mobility; tax competition; Meta analysis Acknowledgments: We are indebted to Thanasis Lapatinas and Spyros Symeonides for valuable suggestions and discussions. We have benefited from comments by Nikos Benos, Michael Chletsos, Manthos Delis, Anastasis Litina, Nikos Mylonides, Nikos Tsakiris as well as the participants at the seminar series of the University of Ioannina Any remaining errors are ours.