We assess the extent to which fiscal transfers smooth regional shocks in three large federations: the U.S., Canada, and Australia. We find that fiscal transfers offset 4-11 percent of idiosyncratic shocks (risk-sharing) and 13-24 percent of permanent shocks (redistribution). This fiscal insurance largely operates through automatic stabilizers embedded in a central budget primarily through federal taxes and transfers to individuals, rather than transfers from the central government to state budgets. These results have implications for the design of fiscal risk-sharing mechanisms in the euro area.
We assess the extent to which fiscal transfers smooth regional shocks in three large federations: the U.S., Canada, and Australia. We find that fiscal transfers offset 4-11 percent of idiosyncratic shocks (risk-sharing) and 13-24 percent of permanent shocks (redistribution). This fiscal insurance largely operates through automatic stabilizers embedded in a central budget primarily through federal taxes and transfers to individuals, rather than transfers from the central government to state budgets. These results have implications for the design of fiscal risk-sharing mechanisms in the euro area.
We assess the extent to which fiscal transfers smooth regional shocks in three large federations: the U.S., Canada, and Australia. We find that fiscal transfers offset 4-11 percent of idiosyncratic shocks (risk-sharing) and 13-24 percent of permanent shocks (redistribution). This fiscal insurance largely operates through automatic stabilizers embedded in a central budget primarily through federal taxes and transfers to individuals, rather than transfers from the central government to state budgets. These results have implications for the design of fiscal risk-sharing mechanisms in the euro area.
West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) countries face a well-known dilemma between the need to provide shock-smoothing mechanisms and the lack of adequate mechanisms to do so. WAEMU countries are subject to frequent and, to a large extent, asymmetric shocks. They have remained poorly diversified and vulnerable to external shocks, such as changing weather conditions. In addition to limited shock-smoothing mechanisms at the regional level, WAEMU members’ ability to respond to shocks through national policies is also constrained by limited fiscal space and the need to preserve external stability—not only at the national level but also at the union level. In this context, developing a well-defined fiscal rule framework at the national level would help to build the necessary fiscal space for shock-smoothing. In addition, the development of specific shock-smoothing mechanisms—including a more developed and integrated financial sector—would also be critical. In addition, promoting financial development is also a challenge, which needs to be addressed in tandem with an adequate surveillance system. Some of these challenges have been faced by other monetary unions, such as the euro area.
The COVID-19 pandemic has weakened the fiscal positions of local governments in China, while the recent stress in the Chinese property market has further compounded this issue, calling for stronger fiscal risk sharing among provinces. This paper examines the existing central to local governmental transfer system and its effect on interprovincial risk sharing and redistribution in China. We show that the fiscal transfers have played an important role in risk sharing although their main purpose is still redistribution. We also propose an alternative transfer mechanism with the size of transfers to each province linked to the shocks that the province is facing to enhance the fiscal risk-sharing effect. Using counterfactual simulations, we show that such an alternative mechanism can significantly enhance risk sharing among all provinces against idiosyncratic shocks while maintaining a comparable level of redistribution effect. Intergovernmental reforms and other structural measures could also be considered to further improve policy efficiency and effectiveness.
This book bridges the study of European constitutionalism with the study of 'fiscal federalism' – the subfield of public economics concerned with structuring public finances between different levels of government in federal states. On one axis, this book delves into European Union and Member State constitutional law from all EU Member States in order to investigate and identify the existence of permanent constitutional boundaries that will impinge upon the selection of proposed models for EU fiscal federalism. On the second axis, this book engages the study of fiscal federalism in order to determine which institutional configurations known to that field remain legally and economically implementable within those boundaries. It provides a far-reaching investigation of which models of fiscal federalism are compatible with the constitutional boundaries of the European legal order.
Does the European Union need closer fiscal integration, and in particular a stronger fiscal centre, to become more resilient to economic shocks? This book looks at the experience of 13 federal states to help inform the heated debate on this issue. It analyses in detail their practices in devolving responsibilities from the subnational to the central level, compares them to those of the European Union, and draws lessons for a possible future fiscal union in Europe. More specifically, this book tries to answer three sets of questions: What is the role of centralized fiscal policies in federations, and hence the size, features and functions of the central budget? What institutional arrangements are used to coordinate fiscal policy between the federal and subnational levels? What are the links between federal and subnational debt, and how have subnational financing crises been handled, when they occurred? These policy questions are critical in many federations, and central to the current discussions about future paths for the European Union. This book brings to the table new, practical insights through a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the EU fiscal framework with that of federal states. It also departs from the decentralization perspective that has been prominent in the literature by focusing on the role of the centre (which responsibilities are centralized at the federal level and how they are handled, rather than which functions belong to the local level). Such an approach is particularly relevant for the European Union, where a fiscal union would imply granting new powers to the centre.
The design of intergovernmental fiscal transfers has a strong bearing on efficiency and equity of public service provision and accountable local governance. This book provides a comprehensive one-stop window/source of materials to guide practitioners and scholars on design and worldwide practices in intergovernmental fiscal transfers and their implications for efficiency, and equity in public services provision as well as accountable governance.
This paper examines how regional disparities have evolved in Russia and how Russia’s system of intergovernmental fiscal relations is managing these disparities. Regional disparities have fallen over the past two decades but remain relatively high. Socioeconomic outcomes remain worse in lagging regions despite faster growth and convergence in income levels. The twin shocks of COVID-19 and lower oil prices appear to have impacted richer regions disproportionately. Compared to other large countries with federal systems of government, Russia stands out with its high reliance on direct taxes as a revenue source for its regions. Transfers from the federal budget to the regions provide some redistribution by reducing the dispersion in real per capita fiscal spending, but also tend to be associated with lower growth. The Russian fiscal system offers degrees of redistribution and risk sharing of around 26 and 18 percent, respectively—with in-kind social transfers contributing the most. Finally, federal transfers in the aggregate tend to be procyclical and are also fairly unresponsive to shocks to regions’ own revenues.
