Current Decentralisation Issues on Sub-Central Government Levels in OECD Countries

• Authors: Halmosi, Peter

Abstracts

EN

After the economic crisis of 2008, local governments performed crisis management on their own since central governments’ actions restricted individual local government actions in most countries. Thus, local policy actions brought significant results only later. In the second period – after 2011 – local government policy actions helped to overcome the negative effects of the crisis and – in some cases – paved the way for the modernisation of the local government system. This became a central issue for countries since ageing of population, shifting within the demand of local public goods and inefficient operation called for structural changes. Modernisation of local public system is a complex phenomenon and reaches far beyond the scope of this paper thus we make an attempt to summarize the general state of local decentralisation after 2008, introduce some new theoretical findings of OECD’s researches and its positive implications in member states. We argue that diverse national policy changes do not support widescale comparisons but pioneers of local government reforms will gain the most benefits of modernisation. Local government systems shall – very soon – not only bear the burden of central governments’ task and revenue sharing issues but more and more incorporate long term sustainable correlations with the educational system and local economic development – probably the most effective tools for raising competitiveness at the sub-central level.

Keywords

EN

fiscal decentralisation; sub-central governments; crisis; local development

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
• Journal: Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 6(78)

Dates

published

2015

Contributors

author

Halmosi, Peter

References

• Blöchliger H., Égert B. 2013 Decentralisation and Economic Growth - Part 2: The Impact on Economic Activity, Productivity and Investment, “OECD Working Papers on Fiscal Federalism”, No. 15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4559gp7pzw-en, retrived: 08.14.2014.
• Fredriksen K. 2013 Decentralisation and Economic Growth – Part 3: Decentralisation, Infrastructure Investment and Educational Performance, “OECD Working Papers on Fiscal Federalism”, No. 16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4559gg7wlw-en, retrived: 08.14.2014.
• Halmosi P. 2013 The Effect of the Economic Crisis on Local Government in OECD Countries, “Public Finance Quarterly”, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 293-306, http://www.asz.hu/en/public-finance-quarterly-articles/2013/the-effect-of-the-economic-crisis-on-local-governments-in-oecd-countries-1, retrieved: 01.10.2013.
• Halmosi P. 2014 Results and Doubts of Economic Crisis Management, “Magyar Tudomány”, No. 2, pp. 151-162.
• Kovács Á., Halmosi P. 2012 Similarities and Differences in European Crises Management, “Public Finance Quarterly”, No. 1, pp. 9-27.
• OECD 2011 Fiscal Rules for Sub-Central Governments – 2011 update of the OECD indicator, http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/Fiscalrulesforsub-centralgovernments 2011updateoftheOECDindicator.pdf, retrived: 08.14.2014.
• OECD 2012 Reforming Fiscal Federalism and Local Government. Beyond the Zero-Sum Game, “OECD fiscal federalism studies”, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264119970-en, retrived: 07.04.2014.
• OECD 2013 Fiscal Decentralisation 2014: Making Decentralisation Work, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204577-en, retrived: 07.04.2014.
• OECD/Korea Institute of Public Finance 2013 Measuring Fiscal Decentralisation: Concepts, policies, OECD Fiscal Studies, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264174849-en, retrived: 08.14.2014.
• OECD 2014 Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en, retrived: 08.24.2015.

Identifiers

URI

http://hdl.handle.net/11320/4447

DOI

10.15290/ose.2015.06.78.01