The Political Economy of Inter-Regional Fiscal Flows
Show Less

The Political Economy of Inter-Regional Fiscal Flows

Measurement, Determinants and Effects on Country Stability

Edited by Núria Bosch, Marta Espasa and Albert Solé Ollé

Struggles over what a region receives, or should receive, from the budget of the central government are common to many countries. Discussions often focus on the measures of ‘net fiscal flows’ or ‘fiscal balances’ provided by the government or other actors. This unique book shows just how these flows are computed then interpreted and clarifies the often misunderstood economic and political motives that explain why some regions receive more monies than others.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Comment III

François Vaillancourt


François Vaillancourt* These comments are organized along the lines of the issues raised in our chapter in this volume. We first use a set of three comparative tables to present the key methodological choices of the three chapters and we discuss them in turn. We then turn to more general issues: THE METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES We address six methodological choices regrouped in three tables: Table C3.1 covers general methodology, and temporal geographic coverage, Table C3.2 expenditures allocation and revenues allocation, and Table C3.3 treatment of debt and interest and treatment of current surplus or deficit. General Methodology, Temporal and Geographic Coverage There are three possible methodological choices: the cash flow approach, the fiscal incidence approach and the economics gains approach. In Vaillancourt (this volume) we argue that the proper approach is the fiscal incidence approach. Why? Because the purpose of these exercises is to examine if residents in a region are receiving a reasonable amount of publicly provided goods and services given what they pay in the central budget. The economic gain approach implicitly assumes that there are no national public goods. Hence the value of the services of the national parliament accrues only to the region where it is located (the capital). This is incorrect. Only the Canadian study excludes parts of the country. This makes sense in that these territories are very different from the provinces and heavily dependent on federal expenditures. But it is preferable to include the whole country, including special regions as in the case...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.