Politična določitev medvladnih nepovratnih sredstev: dokazi iz splošnega skupnega davka v Južni Koreji
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4335/19.2.263-278(2021)Ključne besede:
nepovratna sredstva na osnovi formule, splošni skupni davek, politični vpliv, neenakost, lokalne oblastiPovzetek
Medvladni transferji lahko pomagajo usklajevati porazdelitev virov med lokalnimi oblastmi, da se odpravijo razlike med njimi. Lokalne oblasti v Južni Koreji se močno zanašajo na splošni skupni davek kot brezpogojna nepovratna sredstva centralne vlade. Vendar centralna vlada spreminja dejavnike in uteži v formuli za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev; tako da končna sredstva morda ne bodo vedno natančno odražala formule. Poskušali smo empirično raziskati politični vpliv na mehanizem dodeljevanja v praksi, povezan s splošnim skupnim davkom v Južni Koreji. Ugotovili smo, da politični vpliv, ki temelji na politični ideologiji vodje občinske oblasti, ki je enaka predsednikovi, vpliva na višino povečanega splošnega skupnega davka s strani centralne vlade. To kaže, da okvir za porazdelitev sredstev med različnimi ravnmi upravljanja ni niti učinkovit niti pravičen.
Literatura
Allers, M. A. & Ishemoi, L. J. (2011) Do formula reduce political influence on intergovernmental grants?: Evidence from Tanzania, The Journal of Development Studies, 47(12), pp. 1781-1797.
Anton, T., Cawley, J. & Kramer, K. (1980) Moving money: An empirical analysis of federal expenditure patterns (Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain).
Arulampalam, W., Dasgupta, S., Dhillon, A. & Dutta, B. (2009) Electoral goals and center-state transfers: A theoretical model and empirical evidence from India, Journal of Development Economics, 88(1), pp. 103-119.
Bahl, R. (1999) Fiscal decentralization as development policy, Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(2), pp. 59-75.
Bahl, R. & Johannes, L. (1994) Fiscal decentralization and intergovernmental transfers in less developed countries, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 24(1), pp. 1-20.
Banful, A. B. (2011) Do formula-based intergovernmental transfer mechanisms eliminate politically motivated targeting? Evidence from Ghana, Journal of Development Economics, 96(2), pp. 380-390.
Bird, R. & Slack, E. (2008) Fiscal aspects of Metropolitan governance, In: Rojas, E., Cuadrado-Roura, J. R. & Guell, J. M. (eds.) Governing the Metropolis: Principles and cases (Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank).
Boex, J. & Martinez-Vazquez, J. (2004) Designing intergovernmental equalization transfers with imperfect data: Concepts, practices, and lessons (Atlanta, Georgia: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University).
Boex, J. & Martinez-Vazquez, J. (2005) The determinants of the incidence of intergovernmental grants: A survey of the international experience (Atlanta, Georgia: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University).
Bracco, E., Lockwood, B, Porcelli, F. & Redoano, M. (2015) Intergovernmental grants as signals and the alignment effect: Theory and evidence, CES ifo working paper.
Cadot, O., Röller, L. H. & Stephan, A. (2006) Contribution to productivity or pork barrel? The two faces of infrastructure investment, Journal of Public Economics, 90, pp. 1133-1153.
Caldeira, E. (2012) Does the system of allocation of intergovernmental transfers in Senegal eliminate politically motivated targeting?, Journal of African economics, 21, pp. 167-191.
Case, A. (2001) Election goals and income redistribution: recent evidence from Albania, European Economic Review, 45, pp. 405-423.
Cox, G. (2010) Swing voters, core voters, and distributive politics, In: Shapiro, I., Wood, E. & Kirshner, A. (eds.) Political representation (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Cox, G. & McCubbins, M. (1986) Electoral politics as a redistributive game, Journal of Politics, 48, pp. 370-389.
Dahlberg, M. & Johansson, E. (2002) On the vote-purchasing behavior of incumbent governments, The American Political Science Review, 96(1), pp. 27-40.
Dixit, A. & Londregan, J. (1996) The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics, Journal of Politics, 58, pp. 1132-1155.
Drague, T. & Rodden, J. (2010) Representation and regional redistribution in federations, Working paper (Barcelona: Institut d’Economia de Barcelona).
Gerber, E., Henry, A. D. & Lubell, M. (2013) Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks, American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), pp. 598-610.
Glendening, P. N. & Mann Reeves, M. (1977) Pragmatic federalism (Pacific Palisades, CA: Palisades Publishers).
Gramlich, E. M. (1977) Intergovernmental grants: A review of the empirical literature, In: W. E. Oates (ed.) The political economy of fiscal federalism (Lexington, KY: Lexington Books).
Guziejewska, B. (2015) Designing a revenue structure in local self-government entities in Poland: taxes versus grants. Equilibrium, Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 10(3), pp. 45-63.
Heckman, J. J. (1979) Statistical models for discrete panel data (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).
Khemani, S. (2003) Partisan politics and intergovernmental transfers in India. Working paper No. 3016, Development Research Group, The World Bank (Washington DC: The World Bank).
Knight, B. (2008) Legislative representation, bargaining power and the distribution of federal funds: Evidence from the U.S. congress, The Economic Journal, 118, pp. 1785-1803.
Ladd, H. F. & Yinger, J. (1994) The case for equalizing aid, National Tax Journal, 47, pp. 211-224.
Levitt, S. & Snyder, J. (1995) Political parties and the distribution of federal outlays, American Journal of Political Science, 39, pp. 958-980.
Lindbeck, A. & Weibull, J. (1993) A model of political equilibrium in a representative democracy, Journal of Public Economics, 51(2), pp. 195-209.
Loomis, J. B. & Walsh, R. G. (1997) Recreation economic decisions: Comparing benefits and costs (Pennsylvania, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.).
Lowry, R. C. & Potoski, M. (2004) Organized interests and the politics of federal discretionary grants, Journal of Politics, 66, pp. 513-533.
Martinez-Vazquez, J. & Boex, J. (2001) Russia’s transition to a new federalism (Washington: World Bank Institute).
Oates, W. E. (1972) Fiscal federalism (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).
Otter, N. (2007) Issues in fiscal need equalization in Germany. Paper presented at the Copenhagen Seminar on expenditure needs, September 13th-14th, 2007.
Owns, M. L. & Yuen, A. (2012) The distributive politics of “Compassion in Action”: Federal funding, faith-based organizations, and electoral advantage, Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), pp. 422-442.
Pereira, P. (1996) A Politico-economic approach to intergovernmental lump-sum grants. Public Choice, 88, pp. 185-201.
Porto, A. & Sanguinetti, P. (2001) Political determinants of intergovernmental grants: Evidence from Argentina, Economics and Politics, 13(3), pp. 237-256.
Rich, M. J. (1989) Distributed politics and the allocation of federal grants, American Political Science Review, 83, pp. 193-213.
Slack, E. (2006) Fiscal aspects of alternative methods of governing large Metropolitan areas, In: Bird, R. M. & F. Vaillancourt (eds.) Perspectives on fiscal federalism (Washington, DC: The World Bank).
Smart, M. (2007). The incentive effects of grants, In: Boadway, R. & Shah, A. (eds.) Intergovernmental fiscal transfers (Washington, DC: The World Bank).
Sorens, J. (2014) Does fiscal federalism promote regional inequality? An empirical analysis of the OECD, 1980-2005, Regional Studies, 48(2), pp. 239-253.
Veiga, L. & Pinho, M. (2007) The political economy of intergovernmental grants: Evidence from a maturing democracy, Public Choice, 133, pp. 457-477.
Weingast, B. R. (1994) Reflections on distributive politics and universalism, Political Research Quarterly, 47, pp. 319-327.
Zhao, B. & Bradbury, K. (2009) Designing state aid formula, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(2), pp. 278-295.
