Skip to main content

The Political Economy of Equalization Transfers

  • Chapter
Fiscal Equalization

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D., and J. Ferejohn. J. 1989. Bargaining in legislatures. American Political Science Review, 83(4): 1181–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. 1983. A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98: 371–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, A. 2001. Election goals and income redistribution: recent evidence from Albania. European Economic Review, 45: 405–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G., and M. McCubbins. 1986. Electoral politics as a redistributive game. The Journal of Politics, 48: 370–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A., and J. Londregan. 1996. The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. The Journal of Politics, 58: 1132–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A., and J. Londregan. 1998. Fiscal federalism and redistributive politics. Journal of Public Economics, 68: 153–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. 1994. A political theory of intergovernmental grants. Public Choice, 78: 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, E. 2003. Intergovernmental grants as a tactical instrument: empirical evidence from Swedish municipalities. Journal of Public Economics, 87: 883–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keefer, P., and S. Khemani. 2005. Democracy, Public Expenditures and the Poor. World Bank Research Observer, 20: 1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khemani, S. 2007. Party politics and fiscal discipline in a federation: Evidence from the state of India. Comparative Politcal Studies, 40(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Khemani, S. 2006. Local government accountability for health service delivery in Nigeria. Journal of African Economies, 15(2): 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khemani, S. 2003. Partisan Politics and Intergovernmental Transfers in India, Working Paper No. 3016, Development Research Group, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, S., and J. Snyder. 1995. Political parties and the distribution of federal outlays. American Journal of Political Science, 39: 958–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindbeck, A., and J. Weibull. 1987. Balanced budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition. Public Choice, 52: 273–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A. 2003. Necessary conditions for improving civic competence: a scientific perspective. Mimeo. University of Michigan, Department of Political Science, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, R. 1994. Fiscal Equalization: Political, Social, and Economic Linchpin of Federation. Canberra: Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations. Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, R. 1959. The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economics. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates, W. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereyra, P. 1996. A politico-economic approach to intergovernmental lump-sum grants. Public Choice, 88: 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciotto, R. and E. Weisner. eds. 1998. Evaluation and Development: The Institutional Dimension. New Brunswick, U.S.A. and London, U.K.: Transaction Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Porto, A., and P. Sanguinetti. 2001. Political determinants of intergovernmental grants: evidence from Argentina. Economics and Politics, 13: 237–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schady, N. 2000. The political economy of expenditures by the Peruvian Social Fund (FONCODES), 1991–1995. American Political Science Review, 94: 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, A. 1997. Balance, Accountability, and Responsiveness: Lessons about decentralization. Mimeo. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömberg, D. 2004. Radio’s impact on public spending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1): 189–222

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B. 1979. A rational perspective on congressional norms. American Journal of Political Science, 23: 245–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The World Bank, 2003. World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, A., and B. Dollery. 1998. The political determination of intergovernmental grants in Australia. Public Choice, 94: 299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G., 1974. The political economy of New Deal spending, an econometric analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 56: 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics