Fiscal Federalism, Decentralization, and Economic Growth: A Meta‐analysis

Baskaran, Thushyanthan; Feld, Lars P.; Schnellenbach, Jan

doi:10.1111/ecin.12331

Cited by 94 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are manifold and point in all sorts of directions. Surprisingly, early papers from the 1990s yielded little in the way of consensus about the benefits of fiscal decentralization for economic activity, but the findings have been changing recently (Blöchliger, 2013;Kim, 2013;Asatryan, 2010;Baskaran, Feld and Schnellenbach, 2009). …”

Section: Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth In Colombia: Evimentioning

confidence: 99%

Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in Colombia: Evidence from regional-level panel data

Lozano¹,

Julio²

2016

CEPAL Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides evidence for the positive effects of fiscal decentralization on regional economic growth in Colombia since the enactment of the Political Constitution of 1991. The empirical strategy involved choosing a suitable estimator for the panel data approach, the augmented mean group (amg) estimator, that enabled unobserved determinants suggested by the literature to be added to traditional long-term explanatory factors. The strategy was supplemented with exercises that provided support for the results from (i) cross-sectional models for different periods and various control variables; (ii) a test of the hypothesis of complementarity between public goods provided by different jurisdictions (spillover effects), and (iii) an assessment of unconditional convergence in regional income differences.

show abstract

Section: Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth In Colombia: Evimentioning

confidence: 99%

Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in Colombia: Evidence from regional-level panel data

Lozano¹,

Julio²

2016

CEPAL Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent metaanalysis, based on 31 empirical studies, found that the evidence on the effect of decentralisation on growth is inconclusive (Baskaran et al, 2014). The failure to find clear-cut results partly reflects problems of measuring the autonomy of sub-federal jurisdictions accurately.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Finance, Economic Growth and Inequality

Johansson¹

2016

OECD Economics Department Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JT03405922Complete 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)70 Unclassified English -Or. English ECO/WKP(2016)70 2 OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s).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 OECD Economics Department, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France, or by e-mail to eco.contact@oecd.org. 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.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)70 3 ABSTRACT/RÉSUMÉPublic finance, economic growth and inequality: A survey of the evidence This paper reviews the key issues concerning the impact of public spending and taxation on long-run growth and inequality and takes stock of existing theoretical and empirical studies. Overall, the evidence highlights that the size of the government matters for long-term growth as a too large government may undermine growth through the cost of financing public spending. A reallocation of public spending towards infrastructure and education would raise income in the long run, whereas increasing social welfare spending can reduce inequality as such spending increases redistribution and risk sharing. Similarly, the available evidence also supports the hypothesis that some taxes are more distortionary than others, with income taxes found to be more harmful for growth than consumption and property taxes. However, a tax shift from income towards consumption taxes has equity implications, since income taxes are general...

show abstract

“…Estimated coefficients, by contrast, would not be comparable as the variables in our sample are not dimensionless, i.e. the studies employ different units and constructs (Baskaran et al (2014)). The dependent and independent variables used in primary studies are, for example, scaled differently (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…46 For further meta-regression analysis relying on t-values, see Card et al (2010); Baskaran et al (2014); Klomp and de Haan (2010); Heinemann et al (2016). 47 In order to obtain this value, individual study results are combined to an overall or consensus estimate with respect to the size of effects by assuming between-study homogeneity (see Heinemann et al (2016), p. 9).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Implications of Book-Tax Differences: A Meta-Analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp17003.pdf Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar. Terms of use: Documents inDis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. The Implications of Book-Tax Differences: A Meta-AnalysisMaria Theresia Evers*, Ina Meier**, Katharina Nicolay*** November 2016 AbstractOver the last decade, a large body of tax accounting literature on the association between book-tax conformity (BTC)/book-tax differences (BTD) and firms' opportunistic reporting behavior has emerged. Yet, existing empirical evidence on the questions whether increased book-tax conformity actually reduces Earnings Management (EM) and/or Tax Sheltering (TS) and whether book-tax differences are really indicative of such opportunistic reporting behavior is not yet clear. We therefore conduct a meta-analysis aimed at identifying the sources of heterogeneity in primary studies and at providing a consensus estimate with respect to the sign and the statistical significance level for the examined association. Our qualitative literature review reveals that major sources of heterogeneity in the study design include differences in the proxies for EM and TS and in the measures used to determine BTD and BTC. Our meta-regression results show that BTD are indeed indicative of opportunistic reporting behavior, and even more so of EM. These results are, however, weaker for studies that determine BTD only roughly as the difference between book and estimated taxable income instead of using more specific BTD proxies. Moreover, examining actual BTD computed from tax returns instead of only approximating these from financial statements strongly increases the effects. Hence, efforts taken to accurately determine BTD seem to be worth wile when it comes to the explanatory power for opportunistic reporting. Furthermore, our results suggest a negative association between book-tax conformity and EM/TS, which we interpret as an indicator for higher conformity indeed being effective in reducing aggressive reporting.JEL Classificat...

show abstract

Fiscal Federalism, Decentralization, and Economic Growth: A Meta‐analysis

Cited by 94 publications

References 77 publications

Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in Colombia: Evidence from regional-level panel data

Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in Colombia: Evidence from regional-level panel data

Public Finance, Economic Growth and Inequality

The Implications of Book-Tax Differences: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About