Advertisement

Local government efficiency: is there anything new after Troika’s intervention in Portugal?

  • Maria BasílioEmail author
  • Clara Pires
  • Carlos Borralho
  • José Pires dos Reis
Original Paper
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

The austerity policies implemented in Portugal because of the bailout agreement between the Portuguese Government and the Troika include measures to increase performance and reduce costs. An analysis of local government efficiency and an assessment of its determinants is highly relevant for policy purposes, particularly when new efforts to decentralize are being discussed. The aim of this research is to evaluate the efficiency of the 278 mainland municipalities in Portugal using a two-stage procedure, combining data envelopment analysis in the first phase with fractional response models in the second. The analysis is performed for 2010 and 2015, before and after the Troika’s intervention in Portugal. Results show a similar pattern for both years, in the two stages. The results also indicate that there is no structural changes from 2010 to 2015, suggesting that the reforms implemented in municipalities did not succeed.

Keywords

Municipalities Two-stage DEA Efficiency Fractional response models 

JEL Classification

C14 C35 H72 

Notes

References

  1. Afonso, A., & Fernandes, S. (2006). Measuring local government spending efficiency: Evidence for the Lisbon region. Regional Studies, 40(1), 39–53.Google Scholar
  2. Afonso, A., & Fernandes, S. (2008). Assessing and explaining the relative efficiency of local government. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 1946–1979.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, P., & Petersen, N. C. (1993). A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39, 1261–1264.Google Scholar
  4. Arcelus, F. J., Arocena, P., Cabasés, F., & Pascual, P. (2015). On the cost-efficiency of service delivery in small municipalities. Regional Studies, 49(9), 1469–1480.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.837872.Google Scholar
  5. Asatryan, Z., & De Witte, K. (2015). Direct democracy and local government efficiency. European Journal of Political Economy, 39, 58–66.Google Scholar
  6. Balaguer-Coll, M. T., Prior, D., & Tortosa-Ausina, E. (2007). On the determinants of local government performance: A two-stage nonparametric approach. European Economic Review, 51(2), 425–451.Google Scholar
  7. Banker, R., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies. Journal of Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.Google Scholar
  8. Bastida, F., Beyaert, A., & Benito, B. (2013). Electoral cycles and local government debt management. Local Government Studies, 39(1), 107–132.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2012.683861.Google Scholar
  9. Benito, B., Bastida, F., & García, J. A. (2010). Explaining differences in efficiency: An application to Spanish municipalities. Applied Economics, 42(4), 515–528.Google Scholar
  10. Bosch, N., Pedraja, F., & Suarez-Pandiello, J. (2000). Measuring the efficiency of Spanish municipal refuse collection services. Local Government Studies, 26(3), 71–90.Google Scholar
  11. Byrnes, J., Crase, L., Dollery, B., & Villano, R. (2010). The relative economic efficiency of urban water utilities in regional New South Wales and Victoria. Resource and Energy Economics, 32(3), 439–455.Google Scholar
  12. Carosi, L., D’Inverno, G., & Ravagli, L. (2014). Global public spending efficiency in Tuscan municipalities. Technical Report No. 175. Italy: University of Pisa, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM).Google Scholar
  13. Carvalho, J., Fernandes, M. J., Camões, P., & Jorge, S. (2016). Anuário financeiro dos municípios portugueses 2015—Financial yearbook of Portuguese municipalities—2015. Lisbon: Ordem dos Contabilistas Certificados.Google Scholar
  14. Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.Google Scholar
  15. Cordero, J. M., Pedraja-Chaparro, F., Pisaflores, E. C., & Polo, C. (2016). Efficiency assessment of Portuguese municipalities using a conditional nonparametric approach. Technical Report no. 70674. Germany: Munich University Library.Google Scholar
  16. Costa, H., Veiga, L. G., & Portela, M. (2015). Interactions in local governments’ spending decisions: Evidence from Portugal. Regional Studies, 49(9), 1441–1456.Google Scholar
  17. Cruz, N. F., & Marques, R. C. (2014). Revisiting the determinants of local government performance. Omega, 44, 91–103.Google Scholar
  18. Doumpos, M., & Cohen, S. (2014). Applying data envelopment analysis on accounting data to assess and optimize the efficiency of Greek local governments. Omega, 46, 74–85.Google Scholar
  19. Entani, T., Maeda, Y., & Tanaka, H. (2002). Dual models of interval DEA and its extensions to interval data. European Journal of Operational Research, 136, 32–45.Google Scholar
  20. Ferreira, F. (2011). Determinantes do Endividamento Municipal em Portugal. MSc Dissertation. Braga: Minho University.Google Scholar
  21. Geys, B. (2006). Looking across borders: A test of spatial policy interdependence using local government efficiency ratings. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(3), 443–462.Google Scholar
  22. Geys, B., Heinemann, F., & Kalb, A. (2010). Voter involvement, fiscal autonomy and public sector efficiency: Evidence from German municipalities. European Journal of Political Economy, 26(2), 265–278.Google Scholar
  23. Geys, B., & Moesen, W. (2009a). Exploring sources of local government technical inefficiency: Evidence from Flemish municipalities. Public Finance and Management, 9(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  24. Geys, B., & Moesen, W. (2009b). Measuring local government technical (in)efficiency. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 499–513.Google Scholar
  25. Jorge, S. M., Camões, P. J., Carvalho, J., & Fernandes M. J. (2008). Portuguese local government relative efficiency: A DEA approach. In Workshop on performance, measurement and output based budgeting in the public sector. http://hdl.handle.net/1822/8229. Accessed 20 Apr 2017.
  26. Kluza, K. (2017). Risk assessment of the local government sector based on the ratio analysis and the DEA method. Evidence from Poland. Eurasian Economic Review, 7(3), 329–351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-017-0075-z.Google Scholar
  27. Liu, S.-Y., Peng, C.-J., Pan, S.-C., & Wu, P.-C. (2011). Local government efficiency evaluation: Consideration of undesirable outputs and super-efficiency. African Journal of Business Management, 5(12), 4746–4754.Google Scholar
  28. Lizińska, W., Marks-Bielska, R., Babuchowska, K., & Wojarska, M. (2016). Institutional efficiency of local government in issuing administrative decisions, exemplified by the performance of the local government appeal board in Olsztyn. Oeconomia Copernicana, 7(2), 285–296.  https://doi.org/10.12775/OeC.2016.017.Google Scholar
  29. Lo Storto, C. (2016). The trade-off between cost efficiency and public service quality: A non-parametric frontier analysis of Italian major municipalities. Cities, 51, 52–63.Google Scholar
  30. Malley, J., & Fernández, J. L. (2010). Measuring quality in social care services: Theory and practice. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 81(4), 559–582.Google Scholar
  31. Mello, J. S., Gomes, E. G., Meza, L. A., Biondi Neto, L., & Sant’Anna, A. P. (2005). Fronteiras DEA difusas. Investigação Operacional, 25(1), 85–103.Google Scholar
  32. Meza, L. A., Mello, J. S., Gomes, E. G., & Fernandes, A. S. (2007). Selecção de variáveis em DEA aplicada a uma análise do mercado de energia eléctrica. Investigação Operacional, 27(1), 21–36.Google Scholar
  33. MoU. (2011). Portugal: Memorandum of understanding on specific economic policy conditionality. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu_borrower/mou/2011-05-18-mou-portugal_en.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2017.
  34. Narbón-Perpiñá, I., & De Witte, K. (2017a). Local governments’ efficiency: A systematic literature review—Part I. International Transactions in Operational Research, 25(2), 431–468.  https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12364.Google Scholar
  35. Narbón-Perpiñá, I., & De Witte, K. (2017b). Local governments’ efficiency: A systematic literature review—Part II. International Transactions in Operational Research, 25(4), 1105–1414.  https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12389.Google Scholar
  36. Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 619–632.Google Scholar
  37. Picazo, T., González, G. F., & Sáez, F. J. (2009). Accounting for operating environments in measuring water utilities’ managerial efficiency. The Service Industries Journal, 29(6), 761–773.Google Scholar
  38. Pimenta, H., Macedo, M., & Mello, J. S. (2004). Decisão de realização de investimentos em tecnologia da informação com análise envoltória de dados. Produção Online, 4(2).Google Scholar
  39. Ramalho, E., Ramalho, J., & Henriques, P. (2010). Fractional regression models for second stage DEA efficiency analyses. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 34(3), 239–255.Google Scholar
  40. Ramalho, E., Ramalho, J., & Murteira, J. (2011). Alternative estimating and testing empirical strategies for fractional regression models. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(1), 19–68.Google Scholar
  41. Ray, S. (2004). Data envelopment analysis, theory and techniques for economics and operations research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ruggiero, J. (2007). A comparison of DEA and the stochastic frontier model using panel data. International Transactions in Operational Research, 14(3), 259–266.Google Scholar
  43. Sibieta, L., & Simpson, H. (2008). Public services performance. Oxonomics, 3, 5–9.Google Scholar
  44. Silveira, J. Q., Meza, L. A., & Mello, J. S. (2012). Identificação de Benchmarks e anti-Benchmarks para companhias aéreas usando modelos DEA e fronteira invertida. Produção, 22(4), 788–795.Google Scholar
  45. Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2007). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics, 136(1), 31–64.Google Scholar
  46. Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2011). Two-stage DEA: Caveat emptor. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 36(2), 205–218.Google Scholar
  47. Tavares, A. F., Rodrigues, M., Magalhães, C., & Carr, J. (2012). The economic and political impacts of top-down territorial reforms: The case of Portuguese parishes. Paper presented at the International Conference of Science Association 08/07/2012, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  48. Veiga, L. G., & Veiga, F. J. (2007). Political business cycles at the municipal level. Public Choice, 131(1–2), 45–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9104-2.Google Scholar
  49. Wang, E. C., & Alvi, E. (2011). Relative efficiency of government spending and its determinants: Evidence from East Asian countries. Eurasian Economic Review, 1(1), 3–28.Google Scholar
  50. Yamada, Y., Matui, T., & Sugiyama, M. (1994). New analysis of efficiency based on DEA. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 37(2), 158–167.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Eurasia Business and Economics Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIGES and Management DepartmentPolytechnic Institute of Beja (IPBeja), Escola Superior de Tecnologia e GestãoBejaPortugal

Personalised recommendations