Abstract

This article generalizes arguments and counter-arguments within the scientific discussion regarding the determination of the optimal decentralization level, which will provide the country’s innovative development, since the key task of decentralization has to be not only to expand the income and expenditure powers of the subnational formations but also to understand the final goal of this process – qualitative transformation of the country’s economic system towards improving its innovativeness and competitiveness. Thus, the decentralization reform has to be the driver of the innovative economic development, which is the expected result of the managerial decision-making freedom increase at the local level, the subnational formations’ financial self-sufficiency increase and more effective spending policy (expansion of the innovative projects financing amounts that will promote the sustainable economic growth). Systematization of the scientific works on the above problems proves that there is no one idea regarding the decentralization impact on the country’s economic and innovative development among scientists. That is why it is urgent to continue the empirical searching in this area, that will enable to take into account the dual nature of consequences regarding the activation of the decentralization processes. The empirical study is carried out through using of the non-linear analysis form of dependence (GLM regression, which enables to identify the linear and non-linear character of the relationship between variables) based on the panel data, formed for set of 23 states-OECD members (Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Great Britain and the USA) during 2002-2015. The expenditure decentralization index, calculated as the ratio between the consolidated expenses amount at the subnational level and state consolidated expenses, expressed in parts of the whole, is chosen as the factorial variable model. The final variable (traditional for the economic growth models) is GDP per capita (dollars the USA). Besides, the set of control variables is added to this regression model (which explain the regularities of the resultative feature change and have a strong relationship with it). The control variables are selected on the basis of correlation analysis. The practical implementation of all stages in this research is performed using the software product Stata 12/SE. The results of the study confirm the non-linear character of dependence (the inverse U-shape) regarding the GDP change per capita on the expenditure decentralization level change, and also the maximum extremum of the function in the point with expenditure decentralization level 1.35. It means that excessive expenses load (above the specified norm) on the local budgets will be accompanied by inhibition of the innovative and economic dynamics, that should be taken into account by the relevant authorized executive bodies in investigation of the concrete measures regarding intergovernmental relationships reforming in direction of their decentralization, and in the formation of the well-balanced economic and innovative policies.

Keywords: decentralization, innovative economic growth, innovative state management, intergovernmental relationships, panel data analysis, U-shape hypothesis testing.

JEL Classification: H30, H72, E62, O47.

Cite as: Vasylieva, T., Harust, Yu., Vynnychenko, N., & Vysochyna, A. (2018). Optimization of the financial decentralization level as an instrument for the country’s innovative economic development regulation. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 382-391. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2018.4-33

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Andrejovská, A., & Puliková, V. (2018). Tax Revenues in the Context of Economic Determinants. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14 (1),133-141. DOI: 10.14254/1800-5845/2018.14-1.10
2. Bach, S., Blochliger, H., & Wallau, D. (2009). The spending power of sub-central governments: a pilot study. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/tax/federalism/42783063.pdf
3. Bhowmik, D. (2018). Financial Crises and Nexus Between Economic Growth and Foreign Direct Investment. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 2(1), 58-74.DOI: 10.21272/fmir.2(1).58-74.2018
4. Bilan, Y., Lyeonov, S., Vasylieva, T., Samusevych, Y. (2018). Does tax competition for capital define entrepreneurship trends in Eastern Europe? On-line Journal Modelling the New Europe, 27, 34-66. DOI: 10.24193/OJMNE.2018.27.02
5. Blochliger, H., & King, D. (2006) Fiscal autonomy of sub-central governments. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/ctp/federalism/37388375.pdf
6. Capuno, J. J. (2011). Incumbents and innovations under decentralization: An empirical exploration of selected local governments in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Political Science, 19 (1), 48-73.
7. Chygryn, O., Petrushenko, Y., Vysochyna, A. & Vorontsova, A. (2018). Assessment of Fiscal Decentralization Influence on Social and Economic Development. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14 (4),069-084. DOI: 10.14254/1800-5845/2018.14-3.5
8. Davoodi, H., & Zou, H. F. (1998). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: A cross-country study. Journal of Urban Economic, 43, 244-257.
9. Dziobek, C., Gutierrez Mangas, C., & Kufa, P. (2011). Measuring Fiscal Decentralization – Exploring the IMF’s Databases. USA, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
10. Hanh, N., Diep, P., & Shin, H. (2014). The Optimal Point for Fiscal Decentralization. European Journal of Business and Management, 6 (20),182-189.
11. Harold, N. Ng. Yan. (2018). Econometric analysis of long and short-run effects of exports on economic growth in Cameroon (1980-2016). Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 2(1), 50-57. DOI: 10.21272/fmir.2(1).50-57.2018
12. Hüseyni, I., Eren, M., & Çelik, A. K. (2017). Examining the Relationship Among Economic Growth, Exports and Total Productivity for OECD Countries Using Data Envelopment Analysis and Panel Data Analyses. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 13 (3), 63-73. DOI: 10.14254/1800-5845/2017.13-3.6
13. Ilvento, T. (2005). Using Statistical Data to Make Decisions: Multiple Regression Analysis.  Retrieved from http://www.udel.edu/FREC/ ilvento/BUAD820/MOD504.pdf.
14. Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2007). With or Without U? – The appropriate test for a U shaped relationship. MPRA, 4823,1-12.
15. Lyeonov, S., Vasylieva, T., and Lyulyov O. (2018). Macroeconomic stability evaluation in countries of lower-middle income. Bulletin of the National Mining University, 1,138-146.
16. Martinez-Vazquez, J., & McNab, R. (2003). Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth. World Development, 31(9), 1597-1616.
17. Nguedie, Y. H. N. (2018). Corruption, Investment and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Approach. SocioEconomic Challenges, 2(1),63-68. DOI: 10.21272/sec.2(1).63-68.2018
18. OECD Fiscal Decentralisation Database (2018). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/ctp/federalism/oecdfiscaldecentralisationdatabase.htm#C_Title.
19. Rodden, J. (2003). Reviving Leviathan: Fiscal federalism and the growth of government. International Organization,  57, 695-729.
20. Rodriguez, P. A., & Gill, N. (2005) On the economic dividend of devolution. Regional Studies, 39 (4), 405-420.
21. Rodríguez-Pose, A., &  Krøijer, A. (2009) Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth in Central and Eastern Europe. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/LEQS%20Discussion%20Paper%20Series/LEQSPaper12.pdf
22. Salmon, P. (1987). Decentralizations as an Incentive Scheme. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 3 (2), 24-43.
23. Salo, T. V. (2013). Decentralizatsiia finansovoii systemy: stan ta otsinka rivnia v Ukraini [Decentralization of financial system: state and assessment in Ukraine]. Efektyvnist derzhavnoho upravlinnia – Efficiency of public administration, 35,324-330[in Ukrainian].
24. Singh, S.N. (2018). Regional Disparity and Sustainable Development in NorthEastern States of India: A Policy Perspective. SocioEconomic Challenges, 2(2), 41-48. DOI: 10.21272/sec.2(2).41-48.2018
25. Slavinskaitė, N. (2017). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in selected European countries Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(4), 745–757. doi:10.3846/16111699.2017.1292312
26. Szarowská, I., (2017). Does public R&D expenditure matter for economic growth? GMM approach. Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 90-103. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-2/6
27. Tung, L. T. (2018). The effect of fiscal deficit on economic growth in an emerging economy: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of International Studies, 11(3),191-203. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11-3/16
28. Vasylieva, T. & Kasyanenko, V. (2013). Integral assessment of innovation potential of Ukraine’s national economy: A scientific methodological approach and practical calculations. Actual Problems of Economics, 144 (6), 50-59.
29. Vasylieva, T., Lyeonov, S., Lyulyov O., and Kyrychenko K. (2018). Macroeconomic Stability and Its Impact on the Economic Growth of the Country. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14 (1),159-170. DOI: 10.14254/1800-5845/2018.14-1.12
30. Woller, G., & Phillips, K. (1998). Fiscal decentralization and LDC economic growth: An empirical investigation. Journal of Development Studies, 34 (4), 139-148.
31. World DataBank (2018) Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx
32. Zupan, B., Pustovrh, A., & Cankar S. S. (2017). Does Decentralized Governance Lead to Less Scientific Output? A Fuzzy Set Analysis of Fiscal Decentralization and Determinants of National Innovation Capacity. Journal of Local Self-Government, 15 (3), 647-668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4335/15.3.647-668(2017).