Abdul Jalil, Ahmad Zafarullah (2009): The political economics of the Malaysian subnational governments’ fiscal behavior. Published in: International Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 16, No. 1 (2009): pp. 261-283.
Download (342Kb) | Preview
This paper attempts to shed light on the political economy of the Malaysian state governments’ budgetary behavior by tailoring hypotheses drawn from recent theoritical literature to the Malaysian institutional context and testing them empirically. Our main objective here is to examine whether state governments’ fiscal behavior can partly be explained by the political attributes and the institutional characteristics of the government and of the legislature. In particular, we will try to analyze whether the incentives for the state governments to observe a prudent spending behavior have not been undermined by the fact that they have been able to influence relevant central government decisions regarding their finance. Our estimations results show that states that are overrepresented at the executive level tend to have higher spending and deficits. However, we don’t find any correlation between overrepresentation at the Parliament and states governments’ fiscal outcomes. This can be explained by the fact that in Malaysia as is frequently the case in developing nations, the legislature is peripheral to the executive in terms of decision making power.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||The political economics of the Malaysian subnational governments’ fiscal behavior|
|Keywords:||State governments, Fiscal behavior, Political Economy|
|Subjects:||H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations > H77 - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism; Secession
H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations > H72 - State and Local Budget and Expenditures
|Depositing User:||Ahmad Zafarullah Abdul Jalil|
|Date Deposited:||15. Sep 2010 01:27|
|Last Modified:||14. Feb 2013 03:19|
Ansolabehere, S. & Snyder, J.M. (2003). Party control of state government and the distribution of public expenditures. Unpublished paper, Departments of Political Science and Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Balla, S. J., Lawrence, E. D., Maltzman, F. & Sigelman, L. (2002). Partisanship, blame avoidance, and the distribution of legislative pork. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 515–25.
Belleflamme, P. & Hindriks, J. (2003). Yardstick competition and political agency problems. Social Choice and Welfare, 24(1), 155-69.
Besley, T. & Coate, S. (2003). Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2611-37.
Bordignon M., Cerniglia, F. & Revelli, F. (2004). Yardstick competition in intergovernmental relationships: Theory and empirical predictions. Economics Letters, 83, 325-33.
Bickers, K.N. & Stein, R.M. (1996). The electoral dynamics of the federal pork barrel. American Journal of Political Science, 40(4), 1300–25.
Case, A. (2001). Election goals and income redistribution: Recent evidence from Albania. European Economic Review, 45, 405–23.
Cox, G.W. & McCubbins, M.D. (1986). Electoral politics as a redistributive game. Journal of Politics, 48, 370–89.
Crisp, B. & Ingall, R.E. (2002). Institutional engineering and the nature of representation: Mapping the effects of electoral reform in Colombia. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 733–48.
Dahlberg, M. & Johansson, E. (2002). On the vote-purchasing behavior of incumbent governments. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 27–40.
Diaz-Cayeros, A., Magaloni, B. & Weingast, B. (2000). Federalism and democratization in Mexico. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Dixit, A. & Londregan, J. (1996). The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1132–55.
Herron, M.C. & Theodos, B.A. (2004). Government redistribution in the shadow of legislative elections: A study of the Illinois member initiative grants program. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29(2), 287–311.
Hindriks, J. & Lockwood, B. (2005). Decentralization and political accountability: Incentives, separation and voter welfare. CEPR Discussion Paper, 5125.
Horiuchi, Y. & Lee, S. (2004). Regionalism and redistribution in South Korea. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australasian Political Studies Association, Adelaide.
Levitt, S.D. & Snyder, J.M. (1995). Political parties and the distribution offederal outlays. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 958–80.
Lowi, T. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies and political theory. World Politics, 16, 677-715.
Milesi-Feretti, G.M, Perotti, R. & Rostagno, M. (2001) Electoral systems and public spending. IMF Working Paper WP/01/22.
Persson, T. & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political economics: Explaining economic policy. Cambrigde: MIT Press.
Rodden, J. (2002). Strength in numbers? Representation and redistribution in the European Union. European Union Politics, 3(2), 151–175.
__________ (2005). The political economy of federalism. In Weingast B. & D. Wittman (Eds). Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. London: Oxford University Press.
Rodden, J. & Arretche, M. (2004). Legislative bargaining and distributive politics in Brazil: An empirical approach. Unpublished paper, MIT.
Safire, W. (1978). Safire’s political dictionary. New York: Random House.
Snyder, J. (1989). Election goals and the allocation of campaign resources. Econometrica, 57, 637-60.
Weingast, B.R. (1979). A rational choice perspective on congressional norms. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 245-262.
Weingast B.R., Shepsle, K.A. & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive policies. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 642-664.