Partial decentralization as a safeguard against favoritism


Autoria(s): Cortés Cortés, Darwin Fauricio
Data(s)

01/09/2010

Resumo

In this paper I investigate the optimal level of decentralization of tasks for the provision of a local public good. I enrich the well-known trade-off between internalization of spillovers (that favors centralization) and accountability (that favors decentralization) by considering that public goods are produced through multiple tasks. This adds an additional institutional setting, partial decentralization, to the classical choice between full decentralization and full centralization. The main results are that partial decentralization is optimal when both the variance of exogenous shocks to electorate’s utility is large and the electorate expects high performance from politicians. I also show that the optimal institutional setting depends on the degree of substitutability / complementarity between tasks. In particular, I show that a large degree of substitutability between tasks makes favoritism more likely, which increases the desirability of partial decentralization as a safeguard against favoritism.

Formato

application/pdf

Identificador

http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/10827

Publicador

Facultad de Economía

Relação

Serie Documentos de trabajo ; No. 89

1

https://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000092/007933.html

Direitos

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

Fonte

instname:Universidad del Rosario

reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR

instname:Universidad del Rosario

Alesina, A. and G. Tabellini (2004). Bureaucrats or politicians? CESifo Working paper 1130.

Barankay, I. and B. Lockwood (2007). Decentralization and the productive efficiency of government: Evidence from swiss cantons. Journal of Public Economics 91, 1197– 1218.

Barro, R. (1973). The control of politicians: an economic model. Public Choice 14, 19–42.

Besley, T. (2005). Principled agents? the political economy of good government. Book manuscript.

Besley, T. and S. Coate (2003). Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach. Journal of Public Economics 87, 2611 – 37.

Bordignon, M., L. Colombo, and U. Galmarini (2003). Fiscal federalism and endogenous lobbies’ formation. CESifo Working paper No. 1017.

Ferejohn, J. (1986). Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice 50, 5–26.

Hindriks, J. and B. Lockwood (2004). Centralization and political accountability. Typescript.

Holmstrom, B. and P. Milgrom (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 7, 24 – 52.

Lockwood, B. (2002). Distributive politics and the costs of centralization. Review of Economic Studies 69(2), 313 – 338.

OECD (1998). Education at a glance: Oecd indicators. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

Padro i Miquel, G. (2004). Multitask political agency. Working paper.

Persson, T. and G. Tabellini (2000). Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. MIT press.

Seabright, P. (1996). Accountability and decentralisation in government: an incomplete contracts model. European Economic Review 40(1), 61–89.

Palavras-Chave #Gobierno local -- Modelos econométricos #Descentralización en la gestión #352.0072 #Accountability #Multitask #Internalization of spillovers #Substitution
Tipo

info:eu-repo/semantics/book

info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion