February 1998 Establishing hard rather than soft budget constraints in intergovernmental fiscal relations is perhaps the most important challenge facing developing economies as they decentralize. Recent experience with fiscal decentralization in many developing and transition economies has led many observers to question whether fiscal decentralization undermines macroeconomic stability. In several countries, transfers from central to lower-level governments have increased fiscal deficits at the central level, creating pressures on central banks to monetize additional debt, thus jeopardizing price stability. In other countries, central governments trying to control their deficits have reduced transfers to lower-level governments, creating fiscal distress at lower levels. These issues of macroeconomic fiscal stability have not featured prominently in North American policy debates about fiscal federalism, nor has much academic research been devoted to them. In a world where the state's basic political organization is undergoing rapid reform and restructuring, the tensions and opportunities created by fiscal interactions among levels of government are of critical concern. Much of the literature on fiscal federalism has been geared to the situation in such industrial countries as Canada and the United States. Policymakers and researchers should identify the institutional structures of stable, mature federations that help sustain satisfactory macro-economic performance. But different policy problems are likely to arise in different settings, especially in the developing world. Among topics that deserve further research attention: * The interplay between intergovernmental grants and government borrowing. * What is the difference in effect on lower-level governments between hard and soft budget constraints? What economic distortions are associated with soft budget constraints? What institutional reforms might help to establish hard budget constraints? * Is the country still the appropriate unit of analysis for important economic issues? What economic benefits or costs result from including several regions within one jurisdictional structure? What economic considerations determine the optimal size of a country and what are the crucial economic functions of national governments? * Demographic change, changes in communication and transportation technology, and the development of market institutions may alter the optimal or equilibrium boundaries of political units over time. Such change invariably raises questions about the organization of the public sector and the assignment of expenditures and revenues to different levels of government. The patterns of gains and losses from reorganizing factor markets and jurisdictional structures can be complex. To understand them fully requires understanding the economic consequences of changes in both market organization and policy outcomes resulting from reorganization of the public sector. This paper-a product of Public Economics, Development Research Group-is part of a larger effort in the group to study fiscal decentralization and the organization of government.

This volume contains a description of fiscal relations between levels of government and it provides a set of detailed tables for each country, with revenues split by 1) level of sub-central government; 2) OECD classification of taxes; and 3) category of tax autonomy.

In Russia, as in other new federations and those undergoing constitutional reform, wealthy and politically cohesive regions can substantially alter the rules of intergovernmental relations to their benefit within the context of bilateral bargaining. The end result is institutionalized asymmetry, and potentially unstable federal structures. In this book the author explores the role of center-periphery bargaining in the stability and sustainability of post-Soviet Union Russia.

The pace of economic integration amongst European Union (EU) member states has accelerated considerably during the past decade, highlighted by the process of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Many aspects of the EU's apparatus, however, have failed to evolve in order to meets these new challenges. This book explores the issue of fiscal federalism within the context of EU integration from theoretical, historical, policy and global perspectives. It contrasts the pace of integration amongst EU member states with the failure of financial and administrative apparatus to evolve to encompass fiscal federalism, i.e. the development of a centralised budgetary system. This impressive collection, with contributions from a range of internationally respected authors, shall interest students and researchers involved with European economics and economic integration. Its accessible style will also make it extremely useful to policy-makers and professionals for whom European economic integration is a daily topic of conversation.

This collection of experiences of fiscal decentralisation across a wide range of OECD-Member and non-member economies reveals lessons which are equally of relevance to both groups of countries.

Abstract: April 1999 - Considering the positive impact decentralization has had on regional economic performance and expenditure structure, Russia's federal government should: Decisively protect local self-governance and budget autonomy; Make intergovernmental fiscal relations more transparent; Develop universal models of interactions between regional and municipal governments; Impose stricter limits on total debt and budget deficits of subnational governments. To shed light on decentralization in Russia, Freinkman and Yossifov examine intergovernmental fiscal relations within regions. To analyze trends, they review channels of fiscal allocation within regions-tax sharing and local transfer schemes. To evaluate the potential impact of various fiscal decentralization patterns on regional economic performance (including growth and the budget deficit), they study data on the structure of 89 Russian consolidated regional budgets for 1992-96. They find that local governments' relative share of Russia's consolidated budget, although substantive (roughly a quarter of the total budget), did not expand after 1994. The federal government's relative role in financing public goods and services declined as the relative role of local governments increased substantially. Local governments collected more revenues in 1996 (6.4 percent of GDP) and spent more than regional governments. They also substantially increased social financing (including health, education, and social protection). Russia made no progress toward a more transparent system for tax assignments. The average level of expenditure decentralization is similar for ethnically Russian regions and national republics and okrugs but revenue arrangements differ greatly. True decentralization has taken place in oblasts and krais, where local authorities are provided with a bigger share of subnational tax revenues. A redistribution model applies in republics and autonomous okrugs, where greater local outlays have been financed through larger transfers from regional governments. Regions near each other tend to have similar budget arrangements-the result of intensive interactions between neighbors and probably supported by the activities of regional associations. The size of a region's territory does not influence decentralization outcomes. Fiscal decentralization seems positively related to the share of education spending in regional budgets. And regions with more decentralized finances tend to experience less economic decline. But budget control is weaker in more decentralized regions. Instability and lack of transparency in intergovernmental fiscal relations provide subnational governments little incentive for responsible fiscal policy. Further decentralization without greater transparency could bring greater debt and deficits. This paper-a product of the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region - is part of a larger effort in the unit to study fiscal decentralization in transition economies. Lev Freinkman may be contacted at lfreinkman@worldbank.org.

The book has many merits, and represents an important contribution to the controversial topic of European fiscal policy. I appreciated in particular the high quality and rigor of the analysis and the fact that the pros and cons of the contending opinions are presented in a fair way. It is a rewarding reading. EAEPE Newsletter Buti and Franco present a series of interesting analytical information which should be read by as broad an audience as possible. . . the book is a good buy. László Csaba, Acta Oeconomica This book explores the origins, rationale, problems and prospects of the European fiscal policy framework. It provides the reader with a roadmap to EMU s budgetary framework by exploring its theoretical and empirical foundations, uncovering its historical roots and emphasising its supranational nature. The authors, who have been at the forefront of the academic and policy debate on economic policy in Europe, argue that fiscal policy has always been at the core of the EMU debate. The Maastricht criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact are the most contentious building blocks of EMU s institutional architecture: they have aroused heated controversies between academics and policymakers ever since their adoption. As EMU s budgetary rules undergo their first severe shock, Europe is still searching for its fiscal soul. The book s basic premise is that one cannot fully understand EMU s fiscal framework and the recent debate on its reform without placing them in a historical and institutional perspective and abstracting from the uniqueness of EMU, where sovereign countries retain a large degree of fiscal independence, and monetary policy is entrusted to an independent central bank with the overriding mission of maintaining price stability. Analysing all aspects of EMU s fiscal rules and institutions, this book will strongly appeal to students, academics and researchers of macroeconomic policy and European integration. Policymakers and fiscal policy experts at both national and international levels will also find the book to be of great interest.

The evolving modern world is characterized by two opposing trends: integration and segregation. On the one hand, we witness strong forces for segregation on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, religion, and culture in the former Soviet Union, the former Czechoslovakia, the former Yugoslavia, as well as in Northern Ireland, Spain, and Canada. These forces are quite strong and, in some cases, violent. On the other hand, the European Union and NAFTA represent the tendency for integration motivated primarily by economic considerations (such as gains from trade and scale economies). In fact, these opposing trends can be explained by the concepts developed in modern club theory, local public finance, and international trade.

Abstract: May 1999 - Argentina and Brazil-two of the most decentralized public sectors in Latin America and (along with Colombia and India) among the most decentralized democracies in the developing world-faced similar problems in the 1980s: excessive public deficits and high inflation exacerbated by subnational deficits. In the 1990s, Argentina was more successful at macroeconomic stabilization, partly because it imposed harder budget constraints on the public sector nationally and partly because it had stronger party control of both national legislators and subnational governments. In shifting to decentralized public finances, a country's central government faces certain fiscal management problems. First, during and soon after the transition, unless it reduces spending or increases its own tax resources, the central government tends to have higher deficits as it shifts fiscal resources to subnational governments through transfers, revenue sharing, or delegation of tax bases. Reducing spending is hard not only because cuts are always hard but because subnational governments might not take on expected tasks, leaving the central government with a legal or political obligation to continue spending for certain services. Second, after decentralization, the local or state government faces popular pressure to spend more and tax less, creating the tendency to run deficits. This tendency can be a problem if subnational governments and their creditors expect or rely on bailouts by the central government. Econometric evidence from 32 large industrial and developing countries indicates that higher subnational spending and deficits lead to greater national deficits. Dillinger and Webb investigate how, and how successfully, Argentina and Brazil dealt with these problems in the 1990s. In both countries, subnational governments account for about half of public spending and are vigorous democracies in most (especially the largest) jurisdictions. The return to democracy in the 1980s revived and strengthened long-standing federal practices while weakening macroeconomic performance, resulting in unsustainable fiscal deficits, high inflation, sometimes hyperinflation, and low or negative growth. Occasional stabilization plans failed within a few years. Then Argentina (in 1991) and Brazil (in 1994) introduced successful stabilization plans. National issues were important in preventing and then bringing about macroeconomic stabilization, but so were intergovernmental fiscal relations and the fiscal management of subnational governments. State deficits and federal transfers were often out of control in the 1980s, contributing to national macroeconomic problems. Stabilization programs in the 1990s needed to establish control, and self-control, over subnational spending and borrowing. This paper-a product of Poverty Reduction and Economic Management, Latin America and the Caribbean Region-is part of the LCR regional studies program on fiscal decentralization in Latin America. The authors may be contacted at wdillinger@worldbank.org or swebb@worldbank.org.