Advertisement

Fiscal Decentralization Reforms and Local Government Efficiency: An Introduction

Chapter
  • 161 Downloads
Part of the Public Administration, Governance and Globalization book series (PAGG, volume 19)

Abstract

This chapter is dedicated to the introduction into theory of decentralization. We reviewed past and current theories of decentralization from the classical theories of Oates and Tiebout to the current approaches of the second generation of fiscal federalism and provide a summary of the main results. We linked decentralization with the issue of local government efficiency, which describes how well an organization uses resources in producing services, and effectiveness, the degree to which a system achieves its program and policy objectives. We introduced the main determinants of local government efficiency namely information asymmetry, rational ignorance and rational abstention, bureaucratic behavior, competition among municipalities, fiscal illusion, intergovernmental grants and transfers, municipality size, and the environmental and institutional environment.

References

  1. Abdellatif L, Atlam B, Aly H (2015) Revisiting the relation between decentralization and growth in the context of marketization. Eastern Eur Econ 53(4):255–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adam A, Delis MD, Kammas P (2014) Fiscal decentralization and public sector efficiency: evidence from OECD countries. Econ Gov 15(1):17–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Afonso A, Fernandes S (2006) Measuring local government spending efficiency: evidence for the Lisbon region. Reg Stud 40(1):39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agasisti T, Dal Bianco A, Griffini M (2015) The public sector fiscal efficiency in Italy: the case of Lombardy municipalities in the provision of the essential public services. Technical report no. 691, Società Italiana di Economia Pubblica, Università di Pavia, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  5. Aiello F, Bonanno G, Capristo L (2017) Explaining differences in efficiency: the case of local government literature. Working Paper no. 04-2017, Università Della Calabria, Rende. Available via http://www.ecostat.unical.it/RePEc/WorkingPapers/WP04_2017.pdf
  6. Alonso JM, Clifton J, Diaz-Fuentes D (2015) Did new public management matter? An empirical analysis of the outsourcing and decentralization effects on public sector size. Public Manag Rev 17(5):643–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ames B (1994) The reverse coattails effect: local party organization in the 1989 Brazilian presidential election. Am Pol Sci Rev 88(1):95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersen OJ, Torsteinsen H (2017) “The master of the house”—agencies in municipal service provision: balancing autonomy and accountability. Admin Soc 49(5):730–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aras G, Crowther D (2010) A handbook of corporate governance and social responsibility. Gower Publishing, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  10. Arcelus FJ, Arocena P, Cabasés F et al (2015) On the cost-efficiency of service delivery in small municipalities. Reg Stud 49(9):1469–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Aristovnik A (2012) Fiscal decentralization in Eastern Europe: trends and selected issues. Transylv Rev Adm Sci 37E:5–22Google Scholar
  12. Aslam G, Yilmaz S (2011) Impact of decentralization reforms in Pakistan on service delivery—an empirical study. Public Admin Develop 31(3):159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Aubert BA, Bourdeau S (2012) Public sector performance and decentralization of decision rights. Can Public Admin 55(4):575–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Balaguer-Coll TM, Prior D (2009) Short- and long-term evaluation of efficiency and quality. An application to Spanish municipalities. Appl Econ 41(23):2991–3002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Balaguer-Coll MT, Prior D, Tortosa-Ausina E (2007) On the determinants of local government performance: a two-stage nonparametric approach. Eur Econ Rev 51(2):425–451Google Scholar
  16. Balaguer-Coll TM, Prior D, Tortosa-Ausina E (2010) Decentralization and efficiency of local government. Ann Regional Sci 45(3):571–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bardhan P, Mookherjee D (2005) Decentralization, corruption and government accountability: an overview. Boston University—Department of Economics—The Institute for Economic Development Working Papers SeriesGoogle Scholar
  18. Barenstein M, de Mello L (2001) Fiscal decentralization and governance: a cross-country analysis. IMF Working paper no. 01/71, International Monetary Fund, Washington D.C. Available via https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2001/wp0171.pdf
  19. Bednar J (2011) The political science of federalism. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 7:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Béland D, Howlett M (2016) The role and impact of the multi-streams approach in comparative policy analysis. J Comp Policy Anal 18(3):221–227Google Scholar
  21. Benito B, Bastida F, García JA (2010) Explaining differences in efficiency: an application to Spanish municipalities. J Appl Econ 42(4):515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Benito B, Albadalejo F, Vincente C (2012) Political budget cycles in local governments. Lex Localis 4(4):341–361Google Scholar
  23. Boetti L, Piacenza M, Turati G (2012) Decentralization and local governments’ performance: how does fiscal autonomy affect spending efficiency? FinanzArchiv 68(3):269–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bolleyer N, Swenden W, McEwen N (2014) A theoretical perspective on multi-level systems in Europe: constitutional power and partisan conflict Introduction. Comp Eur Polit 12(4–5):367–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bönisch P, Haug P, Illy A et al (2011) Municipality size and efficiency of local public services: does size matter? IWH Discussion Paper no. 18/2011, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH), HalleGoogle Scholar
  26. Borge L-E, Falch T, Tovmo P (2008) Public sector efficiency: the roles of political and budgetary institutions, fiscal capacity, and democratic participation. Public Choice 136(3):475–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Brennan G, Buchanan JM (1980) The power to tax: analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Brinkerhoff DW, Wetterberg A (2016) Gauging the effects of social accountability on services, governance, and citizen empowerment. Public Admin Rev 76(2):274–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Busemeyer MR (2008) The impact of fiscal decentralisation on education and other types of spending. Swiss Polit Sci Rev 14(3):451–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Carlucci F, Cira A, Immordino G, Ioppolo G, Yigitclanar T (2017) Regional heterogeneity in Italy: Transport, devolution and corruption. Land Use Policy. 66(2017):28–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Campos-Alba CM, la Higuera-Molina D, Emilio J, Pérez-López G, Zafra-Gómez JL (2019) Measuring the Efficiency of Public and Private Delivery Forms: An Application to the Waste Collection Service Using Order-M Data Panel Frontier Analysis, Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, 11(7):1–15.Google Scholar
  32. Čermáková H (2006) Regionální kontext daňové politiky. Optimalizace rozpočtového určení daní se zaměřením na kraje. Dissertation, Masarykova UniversitaGoogle Scholar
  33. Cerniglia F (2003) Decentralization in the public sector: quantitative aspects in federal and unitary countries. J Policy Model 25(8):749–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Clark GL (1984) A theory of ocal autonomy. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 74(2):195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Cruikshank B (1993) Revolutions within—self-government and self esteem. Econ Soc 22(3):327–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. da Cruz NF, Marques RC (2014) Revisiting the determinants of local government performance. Omega-Int J Manage Sci 44:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dahl RA, Tufte ER (1973) Size and democracy. Stanford University Press, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  38. De Borger B, Kerstens K (1996a) Cost efficiency of Belgian local governments: a comparative analysis of FDH, DEA, and econometric approaches. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26(2):145–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. De Borger B, Kerstens K (1996b) Radial and nonradial measures of technical efficiency: an empirical illustration for Belgian local governments using an FDH reference technology. J Prod Anal 7(1):41–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. De Tocqueville A (1961) Democracy in America. SchockenGoogle Scholar
  41. De Vries MS (2000) The rise and fall of decentralization: a comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European countries. Eur J Polit Res 38(2):193–224Google Scholar
  42. Deininger K, Mpuga P (2005) Does greater accountability improve the quality of public service delivery? Evidence from Uganda. World Dev 33(1):171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Di Liddo G, Magazzino C, Porcelli F (2018) Government size, decentralization and growth: empirical evidence from Italian regions. Appl Econ 50(25):2777–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. DʼInverno G, Carosi L, Ravagli L (2018) Global public spending efficiency in Tuscan municipalities. Socio Econ Plan Sci 61:102–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Dollery B, Hamburger P (1996) Modelling bureaucracy: the case of the Australian federal budget sector 1982–1992. Public Admin 74(3):477–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Doumpos M, Cohen S (2014) Applying data envelopment analysis on accounting data to assess and optimize the efficiency of greek local governments. Omega 46:74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Drew J, Grant B (2017) Subsidiarity: more than a principle of decentralization—a view from local government. Publius J Federalism 47(4):522–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Drew J, Kortt MA, Dollery B (2015) What determines efficiency in local government? A DEA analysis of NSW local government. Econ Pap 34(4):243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Drew J, McQuestin D, Dollery B (2018) Do Municipal Mergers Improve Technical Efficiency? An Empirical Analysis of the 2008 Queensland Municipal Merger Program. Aust J Publ Admin 77(3):442–455Google Scholar
  50. Drew J, Kortt MA, Dollery B (2017) No Aladdin’s cave in New South Wales? Local government amalgamation, scale economies, and data envelopment analysis specification. Admin Soc 49(10):1450–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Emrouznejad A, Yang G (2018) A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Soc Econ Plan Sci 61:4–8Google Scholar
  52. Enikolopov R, Zhuravskaya E (2007) Decentralization and political institutions. J Public Econ 91(11–12):2261–2290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Escaleras M, Register AC (2012) Fiscal decentralization and natural hazard risks. Public Choice 151(1–2):165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Faozanudin M (2014) Role of local leadership in providing quality of basic education (Study in Banyumas Regency). In: Rokhman A, Patchanee T, Ritthikorn S, et al (eds) Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Public Management (ICPM-14), Atlantis Press, Paris, pp 362–367Google Scholar
  55. Firman T, Fahmi FZ (2017) The privatization of metropolitan Jakarta’s (Jabodetabek) urban fringes: the early stages of “post-suburbanization” in Indonesia. J Am Plann Assoc 83(1):68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Fisman R, Gatti R (2002) Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries. J Public Econ 83(3):325–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Fiva JH (2006) New evidence on the effect of fiscal decentralization on the size and composition of government spending. Finanz Archiv 62(2):250–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Fogarty J, Mugera A (2013) Local government efficiency: evidence from Western Australia. Aust Econ Rev 46(3):300–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Freille S, Haque Mohammad E, Kneller RA (2007) Federalism, decentralisation and corruption, MPRA Paper 27535. University Library of Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  60. Füglister K, Wasserfallen F (2014) Comparative European politics, the dynamics of multi-level systems. Comp Eur Polit 12(4–5):404–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Galariotis E, Guyot A, Doumpos M et al (2016) A novel multi-attribute benchmarking approach for assessing the financial performance of local governments: empirical evidence from France. Eur J Oper Res 248(1):301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Galiani S, Gertler P, Schargrodsky E (2008) School decentralization: helping the good get better, but leaving the poor behind. J Public Econ 92(10–11):2106–2120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Geys B, Moesen W (2009) Measuring local government technical (in)efficiency: an application and comparison of FDH, DEA, and econometric approaches. Public Perform Manag 32(4):499–513Google Scholar
  64. Geys B, Heinemann F, Kalb A (2010) Voter involvement, fiscal autonomy and public sector efficiency: evidence from German municipalities. Eur J Polit Econ 26(2):265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Goldsmith AA (1999) Slapping the grasping hand: correlates of political corruption in emerging markets. Am J Econ Sociol 58(4):866–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Goldsmith M, Rose LE (2000). Constituency, size and electoral politics: a comparison of patterns at local elections in Norway and the UK. Presented at the IPSA 18th World Congress, Quebec, 1–5 Aug 2000Google Scholar
  67. Golem S, Malesević Perović S (2014) An empirical analysis of the relationship between fiscal decentralization and size of government. Finance a úvěr 64(1):30–58Google Scholar
  68. Grady A, Gersonius B, Makarigakis A (2016) Taking stock of decentralized disaster risk reduction in Indonesia. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 16(9):2145–2157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Grossman PJ, Mavros P, Wassmer RW (1999) Public sector technical inefficiency in large U.S. cities. J Urban Econ 46(2):278–299Google Scholar
  70. Gurr TR, King DS (1987) The state and the city. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Guziejewska B (2018) Normative versus positive approach to fiscal decentralisation and the measures of decentralisation. An analysis based on the example of selected countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Comparative economic research. Central and Eastern Europe 21(1):101–117Google Scholar
  72. Hajnal G (2011) Agencies and the politics of agentification in Hungary. Transylv Rev Adm Sci Special Issue: 74–92Google Scholar
  73. Halkos GE, Polemis ML (2018) The impact of economic growth on environmental efficiency of the electricity sector: a hybrid window DEA methodology for the USA. J Environ Manage 211:334–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Hessels J, Terjesen S (2010) Resource dependency and institutional theory perspectives on direct and indirect export choice. Small Bus Econ 34(2):203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hidayat R (2017) Political devolution: lessons from a decentralized mode of government in Indonesia. Sage Open 7(1):215824401668681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Hoey L (2017) Reclaiming the authority to plan: how the legacy of structural adjustment affected Bolivia’s effort to recentralize nutrition planning. World Dev 91:100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Huang Z, Du X (2017) Government intervention and land misallocation: evidence from China. Cities 60:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Hulst R, Mafuru W, Mpenzi D (2015) Fifteen years after decentralization by devolution: political-administrative relations in Tanzanian local government. Public Admin Develop 35(5):360–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Jackson PM, Brown CV (2003) Ekonomie veřejného sektoru. Eurolex Bohemia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  80. Kalb A (2010) The impact of intergovernmental grants on cost efficiency: theory and evidence from German municipalities. Econ Anal Policy 40(1):23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kauppi K, Van Raaij EM (2015) Opportunism and honest incompetence—seeking explanations for noncompliance in public procurement. J Publ Adm Res Theor 25(3):953–979Google Scholar
  82. King D (1984) Fiscal tiers: the economics of multi-level government. George Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  83. Kuhlmann S, Jäkel T (2013) Competing, collaborating or controlling? Comparing benchmarking in European local government. Public Money Manage 33(4):269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ladner A, Kueffer N, Balderschein H (2016) Measuring local autonomy in 39 countries (1990–2014). Reg Federal Stud 26(3):321–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Livermore MA (2017) The perils of experimentation. Yale Law J 126(3):636–708Google Scholar
  86. Lo Storto C (2016) The trade-off between cost efficiency and public service quality: a non-parametric frontier analysis of Italian major municipalities. Cities 51:52–63Google Scholar
  87. López Martínez M, Reverte GM, Palacios Manzano M (2016) School failure in Spain and its regions: territorial disparities and proposals for improvement. Rev Estud Reg 107:121–155Google Scholar
  88. Madison K, Holt DT, Kellermanns FW et al (2016) Viewing family firm behavior and governance through the lens of agency and stewardship theories. Fam Bus Rev 29(1):65–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Malesky EJ, Nguyen CT, Tran A (2014) The impact of recentralization on public services: a difference-in-differences analysis of the abolition of elected councils in Vietnam. Am Polit Sci Rev 108(1):144–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Mansuri G, Rao V (2013) Localizing development: does participation work? World bank policy research report. Available via http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRES/Resources/469232-1321568702932/8273725-1352313091329/PRR_Localizing_Development_full.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2017
  91. McLure M (2007) The Paretian school and Italian fiscal sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. McQuestin D, Drew J, Dollery B (2018) Do municipal mergers improve technical efficiency? An empirical analysis of the 2008 Queensland municipal merger program. Aust J Publ Admin 77(3):442–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Mei C, Chen K, Wu X (2016) Local government entrepreneurship in China: a public policy perspective introduction. China Int J 14(3).  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2928230
  94. Meričková B, Fantová Šumpíková M, Rousek P (2009) Benchmarking na úrovni miestnej samosprávy—vybrané problémy. In: Klazar Stanislav (ed) Teoretické a praktické aspekty veřejných finance. Nakladatelství Oeconomica, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  95. Mok KH, Wu XF (2013) Dual decentralization in China’s transitional economy: welfare regionalism and policy implications for central-local relationship. Policy Soc 32(1):61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Monkam NF (2014) Local municipality productive efficiency and its determinants in South Africa. Dev So Afr 31(2):275–298.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2013.875888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Mookherjee D (2006) Decentralization, hierarchies, and incentives: a mechanism design perspective. J Econ Lit 44(2):367–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mookherjee D (2015) Political decentralization. Ann Rev Econ 7:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Mouritzen PE (1989) City size and citizensʼ satisfaction: two competing theories revisited. Eur J Polit Res 17(6):661–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Musgrave RA, Musgrave PB (1989) Public finance in theory and practice. McGraw-Hill Education, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  101. Narbón-Perpiñá I, De Witte K (2017a) Local governments’ efficiency: a systematic literature review—part I. Int T Oper Res 25(2):431–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Narbón-Perpiñá I, De Witte K (2017b) Local governmentsʼ efficiency: a systematic literature review—part II. Int T Oper Res 25(4):1107–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Navarro C, Velasco F (2016) “In wealth and in poverty?” The changing role of Spanish municipalities in implementing childcare policies. Int Rev Adm Sci 82(2):315–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Němec J, Meričková B, Ochrana F (2008) Introducing benchmarking in Czech Republic and Slovakia. Public Manag Rev 10(5):673–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Neudorfer B, Neudorfer SN (2015) Decentralization and political corruption: disaggregating regional authority. Publius 45(1):24–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Niskanen WA (1975) Bureaucrats and politicians. J Law Econ 18(3):617–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Nordberg D (2011) Corporate governance: principles and issues. SAGE, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  108. Oates WE (1972) Fiscal Federalism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  109. Ochrana F, Fantová Šumpíková M, Pavel J et al (eds) (2007) Efektivnost zabezpečování vybraných veřejných služeb na úrovni obcí. Oeconomia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  110. OECD, Korea Institute of Public Finance (2013) Measung fiscal decentralisation: Concepts and policies. In: Kim J, Lotz J, Blöchliger H (eds). OECD Fiscal Federalism Studies, Paris. Available via http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/measuring-fiscal-decentralisation-concepts-and-policies.htm. Assessed 10 May 2017
  111. Osborne SP, Radno Z, Vidal I (2014) A sustainable business model for public service organizations? Public Manag Rev 16(2):165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Ostrom V (1991) The meaning of American federalism: constituting a self-governing society. Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  113. Ostrom E (1999) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. In: McGinnis MD (ed) Polycentric governance and development: readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. University of Michigan Press, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  114. Ostrom V (2008) The political theory of a compound republic: designing the American experiment. Lexington Books, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  115. Pacheco F, Sanchez R, Villena M (2014) A longitudinal parametric approach to estimate local government efficiency. Technical Report no. 54918, Munich University Library, MunichGoogle Scholar
  116. Papenfuss U, Schaefer Ch (2010) Improving public accountability by aligning reporting to organizational changes in publicservice provision—an empirical Internet study of all Austrian, German and Swiss towns and states from an agency-theory perspective. Int Rev Adm Sci 76(3):555–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Peréz-Lopéz G, Prior D, Zafra JL (2015) Rethinking new public management delivery forms and efficiency: long-term effects in Spanish local government. J Publ Adm Res Theor 25(4):1157–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Pérez-López G, Prior D, José L. Zafra-Gómez LJ (2018) Temporal scale efficiency in DEA panel data estimations. An application to the solid waste disposal service in Spain, Omega, 76:18–27Google Scholar
  119. Plaček M, Matějová L, Křápek M, et al (2014) Decentralization vs economies of scale: expenditure on maintenance of municipalities’ property. In: Sedmihradská L (eds) Proceedings of the 19th International conference: theoretical and practical aspects of public finance 2014, 1st edn. Wolters Kluwer, Praha, pp 228–236Google Scholar
  120. Plaček M, Půček M, Ochrana F et al (2016) Political business cycle in Czech Republic, Case of municipalities. Prague Econ Pap 25(3):304–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2011) Public management reform—a comparative analysis: new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian States. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  122. Porcelli F (2014) Electoral accountability and local government efficiency: quasi-experimental evidence from the Italian health care sector reforms. Economis of Governance 15(3):221–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Pratt JW, Zeckhauser J (1986) Principals and agents: the structure of business. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  124. Provazníková R (2011) Financování měst, obcí a regionů teorie a praxe, 2. aktualizované a rozšířené vydání. Grada Publishing, PragueGoogle Scholar
  125. Prud’homme R (1995) The dangers of decentralization. World Bank Res Observer 10(2):201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Randma-Liiv T, Nakrošis V, Hajnal G (2011) Public sector organization in Central and Eastern Europe: From agencification to de-agencification. Transylv Rev Adm Sci (Special Issue):160–175Google Scholar
  127. Walker RM, James O, Brewer GA.(2017) Replication, experiments and knowledge in public management research. Public Manag Rev 19(9):1221–1234.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1282003
  128. Sarapuu K (2011) Post-communist development of administrative structure in Estonia: from fragmentation to segmentation. Transylv Rev Adm Sci (Special Issue):54–73Google Scholar
  129. Št’astná L (2011) Three essays on local public finance. Dissertation thesis. Faculty of Social Science. Charles University, PragueGoogle Scholar
  130. Sarto F, Veronesi G (2016) Clinical leadership and hospital performance: assessing the evidence base. BMC Health Serv Res 16(2):169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Seifert S, Nieswand M (2014) What drives intermediate local governments’ spending efficiency: the case of French départements. J Local Gov Stud 40(5):766–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sharpe J (1995) Local Government: size, efficiency and citizen participation. In: The size of municipalities, efficiency and citizen participation. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, p 56Google Scholar
  133. Silva DE (2016) Decentralized leadership. CESIfo Working Paper no. 6064. Ifo Institute—Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, MunichGoogle Scholar
  134. Singh N (2008) Decentralization and public delivery of health care services in India. Health Affair 27(4):991–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Smoke P (2015a) Rethinking decentralization: assessing challenges to a popular public sector reform. Public Admin Develop 35(2):97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Smoke P (2015b) Managing public sector decentralization in developing countries: moving beyond conventional recipes. Public Admin Develop 35(4):250–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Špalek J (2011) Veřejné statky. Teorie a experiment, C. H. Beck, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  138. Šťastná L, Gregor M (2015) Public sector efficiency in transition and beyond: evidence from Czech local governments. Appl Econ 47(7):680–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Stegarescu D (2005) Public sector decentralisation: measurement concepts and recent international trends. Fisc Stud 26(3):301–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Stehlík P (2018) The competitive effect on public procurement for public service contracts: the case of the Czech Republic. J Econ 66(4):416–427Google Scholar
  141. Strand I, Ramada P, Canton E et al (2011) Public procurement in Europe: cost and effectiveness. PwC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  142. Swianiewicz P (2014) An empirical typology of local government systems in Eastern Europe. Local Gov Stud 40(2):292–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Tanzi V (1996) Fiscal federalism and decentralization: a review of some efficiency and macroeconomic aspects. The World Bank, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  144. Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64(5):416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Tillema S, Van Helden GJ (2005) Appreciation, acceptance and use of multidimensional benchmarking information by public sector organizations. In: Mellemvik F (ed) Bourmistrov A. International trends and experiences in government accounting Cappelen, Oslo, pp 230–247Google Scholar
  146. Tommasi M, Weinschelbaum F (2007) Centralization vs. decentralization: a principal-agent analysis. J Public Econ Theory 9(2):369–389Google Scholar
  147. Torrisi G, Pike A, Tomaney J et al (2011) Defining and measuring decentralisation: a critical review. MPRA Paper no. 51441. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Munich. Available via https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/51441/1/MPRA_paper_51441.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017
  148. Transparency International (2019) Corruption perception index. Available via https://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview. Accessed 10 May 2017
  149. Treisman D (2000) The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. J Public Econ 76(3):399–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Tullock G (1965) The politics of bureaucracy. Public Affairs Press, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  151. Verbeeten FHM, Speklé RF (2015) Management control, results-oriented culture and public sector performance: empirical evidence on new public management. Organ Stud 36(7):953–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Vo DH (2010) The economics of fiscal decentralization. J Econ Surv 24(4):657–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern, O (2004) Theory of game and economics behavior. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  154. Vu TT, Zoukri M, Deffains B (2014) The interrelationship between formal and informal decentralization and its impact on subcentral governance performance: the case of Vietnam. CESifo Econ Stud 60(3):613–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Walker RM, Lee MJ, James O et al (2018) Analyzing the complexity of performance information use: experiments with stakeholders to disaggregate dimensions of performance, data sources, and data types. Public Admin Rev 78(6):852–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wang Q, Geng Ch (2017) Research on financing efficiencies of strategic emerging listed companies by six-stage dea model. Math Probl Eng Article ID 3284657Google Scholar
  157. Watt PA (1999) Public choice theory and local government: a comparative analysis of the UK and the USA. Local Gov Stud 25(3):95–97Google Scholar
  158. Worthington A., Dollery B (2002) Incorporating contextual information in public sector efficiency analyses: a comparative study of NSW local government, Applied Economics, , 34(4):453–464Google Scholar
  159. Wu X (2005) Corporate governance and corruption: a cross-country analysis. Governance 18(2):151–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Wu AM, Wang W (2013) Determinants of expenditure decentralization: evidence from China. World Dev 46:176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Wyss K, Lorenz N (2000) Decentralization and central and regional coordination of health services: the case of Switzerland. Int J Health Plann Manage 15(2):103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Yusfany A (2015) The efficiency of local governments and its influence factors. Int J Technol Enhanc Emerg Eng Res 4(10):219–241Google Scholar
  163. Zheng W, Sun H, Zhang P et al (2018) A four-stage DEA-based efficiency evaluation of public hospitals in China after the implementation of new medical reforms. PLoS ONE 13(10):e0203780CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Charles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.College of Regional DevelopmentPragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations