Abstract
Normative theories of fiscal federalism postulate that intergovernmental transfers should be determined by equity and efficiency considerations, to support local governments in providing differentiated public goods to heterogeneous populations, while ensuring an even distribution of basic services across all regions (Musgrave, 1959, 1983; Oates, 1972; Gramlich, 1977). However, a recent surge of empirical evidence shows that the distribution of transfers across local jurisdictions, and what local governments do with these transfers is heavily influenced by political incentives facing both national and local policy-makers. Although the notion that intergovernmental transfers, like most other public policy issues, are influenced by and interact with political institutions and processes, is far from earth-shattering, until recently there had been little attempt to internalize the political implications when analyzing the role of transfers in equalizing access to basic services for all citizens. However, the new evidence shows that politics has such substantial impact on both the distribution and use of resources for local service delivery that it cannot be avoided nor side-stepped when developing intergovernmental fiscal policies for equalization.
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmad, J., S. Devarajan, S. Khemani, and S. Shah, 2005. Decentralization and service delivery. In Handbook of Fiscal Federalism, E. Ahmed and G. Brosio, eds., Forthcoming, Surrey, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ansolabehere, S., A. Gerber, and J. Snyder. 2002. Equal votes, equal money: Court-ordered redistricting and public expenditures in the American states. American Political Science Review, 96: 767–777.
Baron, D., and J. Ferejohn. J. 1989. Bargaining in legislatures. American Political Science Review, 83(4): 1181–1206.
Becker, G. 1983. A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98: 371–400.
Beasley, T. and R. Burgress. 2002. The political economy of government responsiveness: Theory and evidence from India. Quarterly Jounal of Economics, 117(4): 1415–1452.
Boex, J., and J. Martinez-Vazquez. 2004. The determinants of the incidence of intergovernmental grants: A survey of the international experience. Public Finance and Management. Forthcoming.
Case, A. 2001. Election goals and income redistribution: recent evidence from Albania. European Economic Review, 45: 405–23.
Cox, G., and M. McCubbins. 1986. Electoral politics as a redistributive game. The Journal of Politics, 48: 370–89.
Dixit, A., and J. Londregan. 1996. The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. The Journal of Politics, 58: 1132–55.
Dixit, A., and J. Londregan. 1998. Fiscal federalism and redistributive politics. Journal of Public Economics, 68: 153–180.
Gramlich, E. M. 1977. Intergovernmental grants: a review of the empirical literature. In The Political Economy of Fiscal Federalism, W. E. Oates, ed., Kentucky: Lexington Books.
Grossman, P. 1994. A political theory of intergovernmental grants. Public Choice, 78: 295–303.
Inman, R. 1988. Federal assistance and local services in the United States: the evolution of a new federalist fiscal order. In Fiscal Federalism, H. Rosen, ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johansson, E. 2003. Intergovernmental grants as a tactical instrument: empirical evidence from Swedish municipalities. Journal of Public Economics, 87: 883–915.
Keefer, P., and S. Khemani. 2005. Democracy, Public Expenditures and the Poor. World Bank Research Observer, 20: 1–27
Khemani, S. 2007. Party politics and fiscal discipline in a federation: Evidence from the state of India. Comparative Politcal Studies, 40(6).
Khemani, S. 2006. Local government accountability for health service delivery in Nigeria. Journal of African Economies, 15(2): 285–312.
Khemani, S. 2003. Partisan Politics and Intergovernmental Transfers in India, Working Paper No. 3016, Development Research Group, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Levitt, S., and J. Snyder. 1995. Political parties and the distribution of federal outlays. American Journal of Political Science, 39: 958–80.
Lindbeck, A., and J. Weibull. 1987. Balanced budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition. Public Choice, 52: 273–97.
Lupia, A. 2003. Necessary conditions for improving civic competence: a scientific perspective. Mimeo. University of Michigan, Department of Political Science, Ann Arbor.
Mathews, R. 1994. Fiscal Equalization: Political, Social, and Economic Linchpin of Federation. Canberra: Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations. Australian National University.
Musgrave, R. 1959. The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economics. New York: McGraw Hill.
Musgrave, R. 1983. Who should tax, where, and what? In Tax Assignment in Federal Countries, C. McLure, Jr., ed., Canberra: Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations. Australian National University.
Oates, W. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich.
Pereyra, P. 1996. A politico-economic approach to intergovernmental lump-sum grants. Public Choice, 88: 185–201.
Picciotto, R. and E. Weisner. eds. 1998. Evaluation and Development: The Institutional Dimension. New Brunswick, U.S.A. and London, U.K.: Transaction Publishers
Porto, A., and P. Sanguinetti. 2001. Political determinants of intergovernmental grants: evidence from Argentina. Economics and Politics, 13: 237–56.
Rao, G. 1998. India: intergovernmental fiscal relations in a planned economy. In Fiscal Decentralization in Developing Countries, Richard M. Bird and Francois Vaillancourt, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinikka, R., and J. Svensson. 2004. The Power of Information—Evidence from a Newspaper Campaign to Reduce Capture. Policy Research Working Paper No. 3239, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Rodden, J. 2002. The dilemma of fiscal federalism: intergovernmental grants and fiscal performance around the world. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3): 670–687
Schady, N. 2000. The political economy of expenditures by the Peruvian Social Fund (FONCODES), 1991–1995. American Political Science Review, 94: 289–304.
Shah, A. 1997. Balance, Accountability, and Responsiveness: Lessons about decentralization. Mimeo. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Strömberg, D. 2004. Radio’s impact on public spending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1): 189–222
Weingast, B., K. Shepsle, and C. Johnsen. 1981. The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Eocnomy, 89: 642–64
Weingast, B. 1979. A rational perspective on congressional norms. American Journal of Political Science, 23: 245–62.
The World Bank, 2003. World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Worthington, A., and B. Dollery. 1998. The political determination of intergovernmental grants in Australia. Public Choice, 94: 299–315.
Wright, G., 1974. The political economy of New Deal spending, an econometric analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 56: 30–38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Khemani, S. (2007). The Political Economy of Equalization Transfers. In: Martinez-Vazquez, J., Searle, B. (eds) Fiscal Equalization. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-48988-9_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-48988-9_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-48987-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-48988-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)