Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-31T15:42:51.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the Migration of Fiscal Sovereignty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2004

Jonathan Rodden
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Extract

As authority over public expenditures has shifted from central to provincial and local governments in countries around the world over the last two decades, prevailing approaches to the study of decentralization in welfare economics and public choice from the 1970s and 1980s have given way to new political economy approaches. The first generation of theories envisioned central and lower-level governments as distinct sovereigns within their own spheres of activity. Recognizing a more complex reality, the political economy literature is rethinking the notion of sovereignty in multi-tiered systems. Motivated by recent difficulties with fiscal decentralization and fiscal discipline, this essay rethinks the notion of fiscal sovereignty, viewing it as an evolving set of beliefs in the context of a dynamic game of incomplete information played between central and subnational governments. Provincial or local governments, along with their creditors and voters, attempt to assess the credibility of the central government's commitment to abide by pre-specified intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. When higher-level governments dominate the field of taxation and take on heavy co-financing obligations—as central governments do in virtually all newly decentralizing countries—the central government's commitment not to bail out subnational governments in the event of debt-servicing crises is not credible. In other words, subnational governments without significant tax autonomy will not be viewed as sovereign borrowers, and this has important implications for their fiscal behavior.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Besley Timothy, and Stephen Coate. 2003. “Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Approach.” Journal of Public Economics 87 (12): 261137.Google Scholar
Bolton Patrick, and Gerard Roland. 1997. “The Breakup of Nations: A Political Economy Analysis.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (4): 10571090.Google Scholar
Bulow Jeremey, and Kenneth Rogoff. 1989. “Sovereign Debt: Is to Forgive to Forget?” American Economic Review 79 (1): 4350.Google Scholar
Chhibber Pradeep, and Ken Kollman. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Britain, Canada, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Diaz-Cayeros Alberto. Forthcoming. Overawing the States. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Diaz-Cayeros Alberto. 2004. “The Centralization of Fiscal Authority: An Empirical Investigation of Popitz's Law.” Presented at the University of Chicago Comparative Politics Workshop.Google Scholar
Eaton Jonathan, and M. Gersovitz. 1981. “Debt with Potential Repudiation: Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.” Review of Economic Studies 48 (April): 289309.Google Scholar
Riker William. 1964. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Rodden Jonathan. 2002. “The Dilemma of Fiscal Federalism: Grants and Fiscal Performance around the World.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 670687.Google Scholar
Rodden Jonathan. Forthcoming, 2004. “Decentralization and Federalism: On Meaning and Measurement.” Comparative Politics.Google Scholar
Rodden Jonathan. Forthcoming, 2005. The Promise and Peril of Federalism: Hamilton's Paradox.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar