Abdul Jalil, Ahmad Zafarullah and Abdul Karim, Noor Al-Huda (2008): Constraining the spending behavior of subnational governments through borrowing limitation: The case of Malaysia. Published in: The IUP Journal of Public Finance , Vol. 4, No. 3 (2008): pp. 7-28.
Download (404Kb) | Preview
In literature, subnational governments have been identified as being prone to fiscal profligacy. In response to this problem, some countries choose to put a limit on the borrowing capacity of the state and local governments. This is notably the case for Malaysia with the enactment of Article 111 (12) of the Constitution. However it remains to be answered whether such regulation really has an impact on the spending behavior of the state governments. This paper attempts to shed some light on this question by employing the methodology usually found in the study of intertemporal behavior. The underlying objective is to examine whether a decision to further decentralize the economy in the future will not be translated into macroeconomic instability due to the fiscally irresponsible behavior of the state governments. Indeed such eventuality can be avoided if the federal government has what it takes in order to put the spending behavior of the state governments under control. Our findings point to the conclusion that the regulation has failed to produce a significant effect on the spending behavior of the state governments. The results indicate that the state governments in Malaysia manage to observe a forward looking behavior implying that they are not subject to any liquidity constraint.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Constraining the spending behavior of subnational governments through borrowing limitation: The case of Malaysia.|
|Keywords:||Fiscal Federalism, subnational borrowings, institutional restriction, consumption smoothing.|
|Subjects:||H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations > H72 - State and Local Budget and Expenditures
D - Microeconomics > D9 - Intertemporal Choice and Growth > D90 - General
H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations > H74 - State and Local Borrowing
|Depositing User:||Ahmad Zafarullah Abdul Jalil|
|Date Deposited:||21. Sep 2010 15:13|
|Last Modified:||12. Feb 2013 10:38|
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) (1987), Fiscal discipline in the federal system: Experience of the States, Washington D.C.
Albaran P (2000), “Income uncertainty and precautionary saving: evidence from household rotating panel data”, CEMFI Working Paper Series.
Alesina A. and R. Perotti (1996), “Fiscal discipline and the budget process”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 401-407.
Alesina A., R. Hausmann, R. Hommes and E. Stein (1999), “Budget institutions and fiscal performance in Latin America”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 253-273.
Alt J. and R.C. Lowry (1994), “Divided government and budget deficits: Evidence from the States”, American Political Science Review, vol. 88, pp. 811-828.
Arellano M. and S. Bond (1991), “Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and application to employment equations”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 58, pp. 277-297.
Arellano M. and O. Bover (1995), “Another look at the instrumental variables estimation of error component models”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 68, pp.29-51.
Bohn H. and R.P. Inman (1996), “Balanced budget rules and public deficits: Evidence from the U.S. states”, NBER Working Papers, no. 5533.
Borge L.E. and P. Tovmo (2000), “Balanced-budget-rules and the permanent -income hypothesis: An analysis of Norwegian local governments”, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, mimeo.
Borge L.E., M. Dahlberg and P. Tovmo (2001), “The intertemporal spending behavior local government a comparative analysis of the Scandanavian countries”, Annual Meeting of the European Public Choice Society, Siena.
Campbell J.Y. and N.G. Mankiw (1990), “Permanent income, current income and consumption”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, no.8, pp. 265-279.
Carroll C.D. and M.S. Kimball (2001), “Liquidity Constraints and Precautionary Saving”, NBER Working Papers, no. 8496.
Dahlberg M. and T. Lindström (1998), “Are local governments governed by forward looking decision makers? An investigation of spending patterns in Swedish municipalities”, Journal of Urban Economics, no. 44, pp. 254-271.
Deaton A (1992), “Understanding consumption”, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Dynan K.E (1993), “How prudent are consumers?”, The Journal of Political Economy, vol. 101, no. 6, 1104-1113.
Fornasari F., S.B. Webb and H.F. Zou (2000), “The macroeconomic impact of decentralized spending and deficits: International evidence”, Annals of Economics and Finance, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 403-33.
Hall R (1978), “Stochastic implications of the life cycle - permanent income hypothesis: Theory and evidence”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 86, pp. 971-87.
Hines J. and R. Thaler (1995), “The flypaper effect”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, no. 9, pp. 217-226.
Holtz-Eakin D. and H.S. Rosen (1989), “The "rationality" of municipal capital spending: Evidence from New Jersey”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol. 19, pp. 517-36.
_________________________ (1991), “Municipal labor demand in the presence of uncertainty: An econometric approach”, Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 9, no 3, pp. 276-293.
_________________________ (1993), “Municipal construction spending: An empirical examination”, Economics and Politics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 61-84.
Holtz-Eakin D., H.S. Rosen and S. Tilly (1994), “Intertemporal analysis of State and Local government spending: Theory and tests”, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 35, pp. 159-74.
Jomo K.S. and C.H. Wee (2002), “The political economy of Malaysian federalism: Economic development, public policy and conflict containment”, WIDER Discussion paper, no. 2002/113.
Jones M., P. Sanguinetti and M. Tommasi (1997), “Politics, institutions and fiscal performance in a Federal System: An analysis of the Argentine provinces”, Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad de San Andres. Mimeographed document.
_____________________________________ (1998), “Politics, institutions and public-sector spending in the Argentine provinces”, In Fiscal institutions and fiscal performance, ed. Poterba J.M. & J. von Hagen. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Jin J. and H.F. Zou (2002), “How does fiscal decentralization affect aggregate, national, and subnational government size?”, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 52, pp. 270-93.
Kiewiet D.R. and K. Szakaly (1992), “The efficacy of constitutional restrictions on borrowing, taxing, and spending: An analysis of state bonded indebtedness, 1961-90”, California Institute of Technogy, manuscript.
Lane T.D (1993), “Market discipline”, Staff Papers,International Monetary Fund, Vol. 40, pp. 53–88.
Nicolini J.P., J. Posadas, J. Sanguinetti, J. Sanguinetti and M. Tomassi (2003), “Decentralization, fiscal discipline in Sub-National governments and the bailout problem: The case of Argentina”, Inter-American Development Bank, Latin American Research Network, Research Network Working paper no. R-467.
Oates W. E (1972), Fiscal Federalism, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
_________ (1991), “On the nature and measurement of fiscal illusion: A survey”, In Studies in Fiscal Federalism, ed. Wallace Oates. Brookfield, Edward Elgar.
Poterba J.M (1994), “State responses to fiscal crises: The effects of budgetary institutions and politics”, Journal of Political Economy, no. 102, pp. 799-821.
___________ (1995), “Capital budgets, borrowing rules, and state capital spending”, Journal of Public Economics, no. 56, pp. 165-87.
Rodden J (2002), “The dilemma of fiscal federalism: grants and fiscal performance around the world”, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 46, no. 3, pp 670-687.
_________ (2005), “And the Last Shall be First: Fiscal Federalism and Deficits in Germany”, Unpublished paper. MIT
Shea J (1995), “Union contracts and the life-cycle/permanent-income hypothesis”, American Economic Review, no. 85, pp.186-200.
Stotsky J.G. and E.M. Sunley (1997), “United States”, In Fiscal federalism in theory and practice, ed. T. Ter Minassian. IMF.
Ter-Minassian T (1997), Fiscal federalism in theory and practice, Washington, International Monetary Fund.
Weingast B.R., K.A. Shepsle and C. Johnsen, (1988), “The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 89 , pp. 642-64.
Wildasin D (1997), “Externalities and bailouts: Hard and soft budget constraints in intergovernmental fiscal relations”, Vanderbilt University, manuscript.
von Hagen J. and B. Eichengreen (1996), “Federalism, fiscal restraints, and European Monetary Union”, American Economic Review, vol. 86, no 2, pp. 134-38.
von Hagen J., M. Bordignon, M. Dahlberg, B.S. Grewal, P. Petterson and H. Seitz (2000), “Subnational government bailouts in OECD countries: Four case studies”, Inter-American Development Bank, Latin American Research Network, Research Network Working paper, no. R-399.
Zeldes, S.P (1989), “Consumption and liquidity constraints: An empirical investigation”, Journal of Political Economy, no. 97, pp. 305-346.