While there is extensive knowledge about how to design fiscal decentralization policies, considerably less is understood about how a decentralization program should be sequenced and implemented. Countries embarking on decentralization often struggle with decisions about the essential components of decentralization including the order of an introduction of decentralization policies, the number of years necessary to bring a full program on line, and the components of the transition strategy. We argue that the sequencing of decentralization policies is an important determinant of its success. The consequences of a poorly sequenced decentralization program can range from minor delays and complications to ineffectiveness and subsequent failing support of decentralization efforts, macroeconomic instability, and fundamental failure in public sector delivery. At a minimum, the strategy of "making it up as we go" will not lead to the same structure of decentralization as will a planned strategy. The paper raises two questions: First, is there an optimal sequencing for decentralization policies and implementation? Our answer is that there is, and that following these sequencing rules can reduce the costs and risks of implementing fiscal decentralization. Second, to what extent do countries follow these optimal sequencing rules? The answer is, in general, they do not. The gap between theory and practice is a result of the complexity of sequencing design, which discourages fiscal planners from implement the full process. In addition, sequencing requires a sustained discipline and vision for its implementing, as well as overcoming pressures from political actors, especially in developing countries.

No abstract

We review the changing nature of tax policy in developing countries over the last 30 years and consider what factors determining the level and structure of tax revenues in such countries may have changed recently and how such changes may affect future developments.

Fiscal Decentralization is a popular economic development strategy among transition and developing countries. This article reviews the advantages of fiscal decentralization in a theoretical context, but critiques the relevance of the standard theory of federalism as it applies to emerging economies. It is argued that the macroeconomic benefits of fiscal centralization, the absence of good instruments of local government finance, and the centralist politics that characterize most low income countries have been strong enough to hold back increased emphasis on local government finance.

The widespread adoption of fiscal decentralization laws during the past 25 years can be mostly tracked to economic efficiency gains and nation-building objectives. Subnational governments (SNGs) in industrialized countries account for about twice the share of total government expenditures as in developing countries. Transition countries also assign more expenditure responsibilities to SNGs than do the developing countries. There has been little growth in the SNG expenditure or tax shares over the past three decades. We confirm the basic hypotheses that the SNG expenditure share is significantly higher in countries with higher incomes, larger populations, and a lower degree of corruption.