JT03401144Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. ECO/WKP(2016) The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.Latvia was not an OECD Member at the time of preparation of this publication. Accordingly, Latvia does not appear in the list of OECD Members and is not included in the zone aggregates. © OECD (2016)You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org ECO/WKP(2016)54 3 ABSTRACT Fiscal Decentralisation and Regional DisparitiesFiscal decentralisation can lead to a more efficient provision of local public goods and services and promote a better match between policies and citizens' preferences. At the same time, however, there are concerns about whether all regions will gain from more autonomy. Decentralisation may not lift all boats, with "poor" regions losing competitiveness with respect to better endowed ones, thus increasing regional disparities. The present work investigates the relationship between fiscal decentralisation and regional inequality within countries. Particular attention is paid to the different channels through which decentralisation can affect disparities: taxing powers, spending autonomy and the vertical fiscal imbalance. The empirical analysis, which is conducted on a sample of 30 OECD countries for the period 1995-2011, suggests that a balanced fiscal structure, where local spending is mainly financed by local taxation, reduces regional disparities, by providing an incentive to better use local resources and implement policies that favour economic development.Keywords: Fiscal decentralisation, regional inequality, panel data JEL Classification: H71; H77; R11 ***** RESUME Décentralisation budgétaire et disparités régionalesSi la décentralisation budgétaire peut permettre d'améliorer l'efficience de la fourniture des biens et services publics locaux et promouvoir une meilleure adéquation entre les politiques publiques et les préférences des citoyens, la question de savoir si toutes les régions peuvent tirer parti d'une plus grande autonomie est source de préoccupation. Il est possible que la décentralisation ne profite pas à toutes les régions, et qu'elle se traduise, pour les régions « pauvres » par une perte de compétitivité par rapport à d'autres mi...

The OECD Economic Policy Paper Series is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. Hansjörg Blöchliger and David Bartolini are in the Economics Department and the Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate of the OECD and Sibylle Stossberg is with the German Federal Ministry of Finance (Bundesministerium der Finanzen). At the time of writing this paper, David Bartolini was with the Economics Department and Sibylle Stossberg was on leave from the Ministry.

Fiscal decentralisation might be partially responsible for rising income inequality by exacerbating competition between sub-national governments and compromising national government’s ability to redistribute. This paper investigates the relationship between fiscal decentralisation and economy-wide disposable income inequality. Drawing on a dataset of up to 20 OECD countries and covering the period 1996 to 2011, the analysis links a set of income inequality indicators and a wide array of fiscal decentralisation indicators. Results indicate that decentralisation might actually reduce income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, but the effect is rather small and unstable across specifications. Fine-graining the analysis by using income percentile ratios, in turn, produces more significant and stable results. As such, the effects of fiscal decentralisation are not the same along the income distribution. While decentralisation tends to be associated with a reduction in income inequality between high incomes and the median, it is linked to a divergence of low income groups from the median, notably via sub-central tax autonomy. Transfers between levels of government also tend to be associated with an increase in the gap between lower and middle incomes. Interpreting these effects jointly, it seems that mainly middle income earners benefit from fiscal decentralisation.

JT03401142Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works.Comments on Working Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to

Sound public finances are necessary for the functioning and economic prosperity of a common currency union. The financial, economic and European sovereign debt crises revealed that financial stability and economic growth also serve as prerequisites and that all three interact in this respect. This has made clear that containing related vulnerabilities and risks in order to effectively prevent serious crises is complex and not sufficiently addressed by the current institutional framework of the Euro area. Substantial institutional shortcomings are now being addressed by reforms. However, in this article, we argue that further institutional reforms are needed in order to integrate vulnerability and risk analyses into surveillance processes. Above all, we propose setting up an independent expert council that is charged with the evaluation of all surveillance processes.