Evaluación de los efectos de las transferencias intergubernamentales regionales en Uruguay
PDF (English)

Palabras clave

federalismo fiscal
transferencias intergubernamentales
efecto papel matamoscas
endogeneidad
Uruguay

Cómo citar

Muinelo-Gallo, L. (2021). Evaluación de los efectos de las transferencias intergubernamentales regionales en Uruguay. Sobre México Temas De Economía, 1(4), 6-38. https://doi.org/10.48102/rsm.vi4.90

Resumen

Utilizando un panel desbalanceado de 18 gobiernos regionales uruguayos desde 1991 hasta 2017, exploramos las hipótesis de los efectos de papel matamoscas y de asimetría en el gasto público regional. En concreto, la hipótesis del papel matamoscas señala que la propensión de las unidades gubernamentales subnacionales a gastar las transferencias no condicionadas intergubernamentales es mayor que la propensión a gastar en la demanda de servicios públicos regionales por parte de los agentes privados locales. La aplicación de técnicas de datos de panel con el uso de variables instrumentales pone de manifiesto la presencia de un efecto papel matamoscas considerable, pero no de asimetría. Nuestras estimaciones también identifican que los factores de economía política juegan un papel importante en los procesos presupuestarios regionales en Uruguay. Este trabajo contribuye a la escasa evidencia empírica sobre los efectos de las transferencias no condicionadas del gobierno central en las finanzas subnacionales para los países de renta media.

https://doi.org/10.48102/rsm.vi4.90
PDF (English)

Citas

Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51.

Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297.

Bahl, R. (1999). Implementation rules for fiscal decentralization. International Studies Program Working Paper, 30. Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.

Bailey, S. J., & Connolly, S. (1998). The flypaper effect: Identifying areas for further research. Public Choice, 95(3), 335-361.

Baker, M., Payne, A. A., & Smart, M. (1999). An empirical study of matching grants: the cap on CAP. Journal of Public Economics, 72(2), 269-288.

Becker, E. (1996). The illusion of fiscal illusion: Unsticking the flypaper effect. Public Choice, 86(1), 85-102.

BID. (2009). Finanzas y gestión de los gobiernos subnacionales en Uruguay. Nota Técnica UR-N1029. Responsable: Huáscar Eguino (FMM) Consultor: Juan Carlos Aguilar.

BID. (2017). Descentralización fiscal y disparidades regionales en América Latina. El potencial de las transferencias de igualación, Washington D.C: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. IDB-MG-568.

Borge, L. E., Rattsø, J., & Sørensen, R. (1995). Local government service production: The politics of allocative sluggishness. Public Choice, 82(1), 135-157.

Bradford, D. F., & Oates, W. E. (1971). The analysis of revenue sharing in a new approach to collective fiscal decisions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85(3), 416-439.

Case, A. C., Rosen, H. S., & Hines Jr, J. R. (1993). Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: Evidence from the states. Journal of Public Economics, 52(3), 285-307.

Chernick, H. (1979). An economic model of the distribution of project grants. In P. Mieszkowski and W. Oakland (Eds.), Fiscal federalism and grants-in-aid. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Courant, P. N., Gramlich, E. M., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1979). The stimulative effect of intergovernmental grants: or why money sticks where it hits. In P. Mieszkowski & W. Oakland (Eds.), Fiscal federalism and grants-in-aid. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Cullis, J., & Jones, P. (2009). Public finance and public choice: analytical perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Deller, S. C., & Maher, C. S. (2006). A model of asymmetries in the flypaper effect. Publius: the journal of federalism, 36(2), 213-229.

Dollery, B. E., & Worthington, A. C. (1996). The empirical analysis of fiscal illusion. Journal of Economic Surveys, 10(3), 261-297.

Espinosa, S. (2011). Mexican Flypaper: Money Sticks Where it Hits... But Every Time?. Latin American Policy, 2(2), 122-136.

Filimon, R., Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1982). Asymmetric information and agenda control: The bases of monopoly power in public spending. Journal of Public Economics, 17(1), 51-70.

Gamkhar, S., & Oates, W. (1996). Asymmetries in the response to increases and decreases in intergovernmental grants: Some empirical findings. National Tax Journal, 49(4), 501-512.

Gamkhar, S., and Shah, A. (2007). The impact of intergovernmental fiscal transfers: A synthesis of the conceptual and empirical literature. In R. Boadway and A. Shah (Eds.), Intergovernmental fiscal transfers: Principles and practice. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Gennari, E., & Messina, G. (2014). How sticky are local expenditures in Italy? Assessing the relevance of the flypaper effect through municipal data. International Tax and Public Finance, 21(2), 324-344.

Goetz, C.J. (1977). Fiscal illusion in state and local finance. In T.E. Borcherding (Ed.), Budget and bureaucrats: The sources of government growth, 176-187. Durham: Duke University Press.

Gramlich, E. M. (1969). State and local governments and their budget constraint. International Economic Review, 10(2), 163-182.

Gramlich, E. M. (1977). Intergovernmental grants: a review of the empirical literature. In W. E. Oates (Ed.), The political economy of fiscal federalism. Lexington, MA., 219–239.

Gramlich, E. M. (1987). Federalism and federal deficit reduction. National Tax Journal, 40(3), 299-313.

Gramlich, E. M., Galper, H., Goldfeld, S., & McGuire, M. (1973). State and local fiscal behavior and federal grant policy. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1973(1), 15-65.

Hamilton, B. W. (1983). The flypaper effect and other anomalies. Journal of Public Economics, 22(3), 347-361.

Hamilton, J. H. (1986). The flypaper effect and the deadweight loss from taxation. Journal of Urban Economics, 19(2), 148-155.

Henderson, J. M. (1968). Local government expenditures: A social welfare analysis. The Review of Economics of Statistics, 156-163.

Heyndels, B. (2001). Asymmetries in the flypaper effect: empirical evidence for the Flemish municipalities. Applied Economics, 33(10), 1329-1334.

Hines, J. R., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). The flypaper effect. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 217-226.

Inman, R. P. (2008). The flypaper effect (No. w14579). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Johansson, E. (2003). Intergovernmental grants as a tactical instrument: empirical evidence from Swedish municipalities. Journal of Public Economics, 87(5-6), 883-915.

King, D. (1994). Fiscal Tiers. London: Allen and Unwin.

Knight, B. (2002). Endogenous federal grants and crowd-out of state government spending: Theory and evidence from the federal highway aid program. American Economic Review, 92(1), 71-92.

Lago-Peñas, S. (2008). Local governments' asymmetric reactions to grants: Causes and consequences. Public Finance Review, 36(2), 219-242.

Levaggi, R., & Smith, P. C. (2005). Decentralization in health care: lessons from public economics. Health policy and economics: opportunities and challenges, 223-47.

Levaggi, R., & Zanola, R. (2003). Flypaper effect and sluggishness: Evidence from regional health expenditure in Italy. International Tax and Public Finance, 10(5), 535-547.

Martinez-Vazquez, J. & Sepulveda, C. (2011). Intergovernmental Transfers in Latin America: A Policy Reform Perspective. International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1108, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.

McGuire, M. (1975). An economic model of federal grants and local fiscal response. In W. E. Oates (Ed.), Financing the new federalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Megdal, S. B. (1987). The flypaper effect revisited: An econometric explanation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 347-351.

Melo, L. (2002). The flypaper effect under different institutional contexts: The Colombian case. Public Choice, 111(3), 317-345.

Moffitt, R. A. (1984). The effects of grants-in-aid on state and local expenditures: The case of AFDC. Journal of public Economics, 23(3), 279-305.

Muinelo-Gallo, L., Rodríguez-Miranda, A., & Castro-Scavone, P. (2016). Intergovernmental transfers and regional income inequalities: an empirical analysis of Uruguay. Hacienda Pública Española, 219(4), 7-32.

Musgrave, R. (1959). The theory of public finance: a study in public economy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Musgrave, R. & Musgrave, P. (1984). Public Finance in Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Niskanen, W. (1968). Bureaucrats and politicians. The Journal of Law and Economics, 18, 617–643.

Oates, W. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1120-49.

Oates, W. (2005). Toward a second-generation theory of fiscal federalism. International Tax and Public Finance, 12, 349–373.

Stine, W. (1994). Is local government revenue response to federal aid symmetrical? Evidence from Pennsylvania county governments in an era of retrenchment. National Tax Journal, 47, 799–816.

Tovmo, P. & Falch, T. (2002). The flypaper effect and political strength. Economics of Governance.3, 153–170.

Vegh, C. A., & Vuletin, G. (2015). Unsticking the flypaper effect in an uncertain world. Journal of Public Economics, 131, 142-155.

Wyckoff, P. G. (1991). The elusive flypaper effect. Journal of Urban Economics, 30(3), 310-328.