Fiscal decentralization contributes to economic growth: evidence from state-level cross-section data for the United States

By Nobuo Akai, Masayo Sakata. 2002

552 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b6a217bc36d77e62eb5cad2349cfd8db69cb967e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Economics and Econometrics

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

Fiscal Federalism and Economic Growth (2006, background): “The drawbacks of federalism, which have also been noted in the literature, include the sacrifice of scale economies due to smaller jurisdiction sizes (Oates, 1972, Alesina and Spoalore, 1997), losses from interjurisdictional tax competition when government revenue comes from taxation of a mobile tax”
The Impact of Local Decentralization on Economic Growth: Evidence from U.S. Counties (2011, unknown): “For example, Lin and Liu (2000) using Chinese provinces and Akai and Sakata (2002) using U.S. states.”
Decentralization and Local Governments' Performance: How Does Fiscal Autonomy Affect Spending Efficiency? (2012, unknown): “As a measure of fiscal autonomy, we adopt the tax decentralization indicator proposed for the first time by Akai and Sakata (2002), defined as the share of own taxes ( ICI + Addizionale Comunale IRPEF + TARSU ) 10 on local government’s total revenues.”
Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth in OECD Countries (2013, unknown): “These include, inter alia, Akai and Sakata (2002) who use state-level cross-section data from the US; Stansel (2005) who uses data on 314 US metropolitan areas from 1960-1990; Zhang and Zou (2001) who use data on Indian states; Iimi (2005) who uses a panel of 51 developing and developed”
Fiscal Decentralization and Regional Disparity: Evidence from Cross-Section and Panel Data (2009, unknown): “1There are several empirical studies that test this theory of a link between scal decentralization and economic growth, single country studies, e.g., Zou (1998), Akai (2002) , or Jin et al. (2005), as well as cross-country studies, e.g., Davoodi and Zou (1998), Yilmaz (1999), Iimi (2005), or Thornt”
Fiscal decentralization and regional economic growth: Theory, empirics, and the Russian experience (2015, background): “…suits the purpose of maximizing relationship between both expenditure and revenue decentralization and economic growth at the state level (Akai and Sakata, 2002), as well as a negative correlation between the degree of decentralization and the volatility of economic growth in The…”
Decentralization and Political Institutions (2007, background): “Akai and Sakata (2002) reported positive effect of decentralization on growth of US states in early 1990s.”
Local decentralization and local economic growth: A cross-sectional examination of US metropolitan areas (2005, methodology): “Akai and Sakata [1] used US states as their unit of analysis.”
Does Tax Competition Really Promote Growth? (2010, background): “more robust evidence that …scal decentralization increases growth ( Akai and Sakata, 2002,”
Regional decentralization and fiscal incentives: Federalism, Chinese style (2005, methodology): “8 Akai and Sakata (2002) used an ex post measure of fiscal “autonomy” (defined as the ratio of local expenditure over local revenue) in their study of the U.S. fiscal federalism.”
The Economic (in)Efficiency of Devolution (2004, background): “Akai and Sakata (2002), in contrast, report a positive association between fiscal decentralization and economic performance in the USA, as do Zhang and Zou (2001) for the case of India.”
The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey (2015, unknown): “For the American states, Akai and Sakata (2002) show that decentralization improves economic growth and business climate.”
Fiscal Decentralization and Regional Disparities: Evidence from Several European Union Countries (2008, background): “Finally, it should not be overlooked that figure 2 and the correlation coefficient calculated are based on pooled data, which prevents any attempt to control for country-specific factors relating, for example, to institutional or historical features (Akai and Sakata, 2002).”