Economic and Social Development - Ss. Cyril and Methodius

Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency and University North in cooperation with

Faculty of Management University of Warsaw Faculty of Law, Economics and Social Sciences Sale - Mohammed V University in Rabat

Polytechnic of Medimurje in Cakovec

Economic and Social Development

49th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development Development – "Building Resilient Society"

Book of Proceedings

Editors: Darko Dukic, Tomasz Studzieniecki, Jasmina Grzinic

Zagreb, 13-14 December 2019

Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency and University North in cooperation with

Faculty of Management University of Warsaw Faculty of Law, Economics and Social Sciences Sale - Mohammed V University in Rabat

Polytechnic of Medimurje in Cakovec

Editors: Darko Dukic, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia

Tomasz Studzieniecki, Gdynia Maritime University, Poland Jasmina Grzinic, Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Croatia

Economic and Social Development 49th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development Development –

"Building Resilient Society"

Book of Proceedings

Zagreb, 13-14 December 2019

Title ◼ Economic and Social Development (Book of Proceedings), 49th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development Development – "Building Resilient Society"

Editors ◼ Darko Dukic, Tomasz Studzieniecki, Jasmina Grzinic

Scientific Committee / Programski Odbor ◼ Marijan Cingula (President), University of Zagreb, Croatia; Sandra Raquel Alves, University of Aveiro,

Portugal; Ayuba A. Aminu, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria; Anona Armstrong, Victoria University, Australia; Gouri Sankar

Bandyopadhyay, The University of Burdwan, Rajbati Bardhaman, India; Haimanti Banerji, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India; Elisabeth

de Jesus Oliveira Brito, University of Aveiro, Portugal; Alla Bobyleva, The Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia; Leonid K. Bobrov, State

University of Economics and Management, Novosibirsk, Russia; Rado Bohinc, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; Zeki Atil Bulut, Dokuz Eylul

University, Turkey; Adnan Celik, Selcuk University , Konya, Turkey; Angelo Maia Cister, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brasil; Alexey Chernov,

RUDN University, Russian Federation; Przemyslaw Chmielecki, Higher Baptist Theological Seminary in Warsaw, Poland; Mirela Cristea, University

of Craiova, Romania; Sreten Cuzovic, University of Nis, Serbia; Oguz Demir, Istanbul Commerce University, Turkey; T.S. Devaraja, University of

Mysore, India; Onur Dogan, Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey; Darko Dukic, University of Osijek, Croatia; Gordana Dukic, Univers ity of Osijek,

Croatia; Alba Dumi, Vlora University, Vlore, Albania; Ksenija Dumicic, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Galina Pavlovna Gagarinskaya, Samara State

University, Russia; Fran Galetic, Zagreb University, Croatia; Mirjana Gligoric, Faculty of Economics - Belgrade University, Serbia; Maria Jose

Angelico Goncalves, Porto Accounting and Business School - P.Porto, Portugal; Mehmet Emre Gorgulu, Afyon Kocatepe University, Turkey; Klodiana

Gorica, University of Tirana, Albania; Aleksandra Grobelna, Gdynia Maritime University, Poland; Liudmila Guzikova, Peter the Great Saint Petersburg

Polytechnic University, Russia; Anica Hunjet, University North, Koprivnica, Croatia; Oxana Ivanova, Ulyanovsk State University, Ulyanovsk, Russia;

Irena Jankovic, Faculty of Economics, Belgrade University, Serbia; Lara Jelenc, University of Rijeka, Croatia; Myrl Jones, Radford University, USA;

Gorazd Justinek, Graduate School of Government and European Studies, Slovenia; Hacer Simay Karaalp, Pamukkale University, urkey; Grzegorz

Karasiewicz, University of Warsaw, Poland; Dafna Kariv, The College of Management Academic Studies, Rishon Le Zion, Israel; Salih Katircioglu,

Eastern Mediterranean University, Northern Cyprus, Turkey; Hilal Yildirir Keser, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey; Sophia Khalimova, Institute of

Economics and Industrial Engineering of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Science, Novosibirsk, Russia; Marina Klacmer Calopa, University

of Zagreb, Croatia; Vladimir Kovsca, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Goran Kozina, University North, Koprivnica, Croatia; Dzenan Kulovic, Univeristy

of Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Robert Lewis, Les Roches Gruyere University of Applied Sciences, Bulle, Switzerland; Ladislav Lukas, Univ. of

West Bohemia, Faculty of Economics, Czech Republic; Pascal Marty, University of La Rochelle, France; Vaidotas Matutis, Vilnius University,

Lithuania; Marjana Merkac Skok, GEA College of Entrepreneurship, Ljubljana, Slovenija; Daniel Francois Meyer, North West University, South

Africa; Gabriela Mezeiova, Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information, Slovak Republic; Marin Milkovic, University North, Koprivnica,

Croatia; Raquel Filipa do Amaral Chambre de Meneses Soares Bastos Moutinho, University of Porto, Portugal; Zlatko Nedelko, University of Maribor,

Slovenia; Gratiela Georgiana Noja, West University of Timisoara, Romania; Zsuzsanna Novak, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary; Alojzy Z.

Nowak, University of Warsaw, Poland; Tomasz Ochinowski, University of Warsaw, Poland; Mislav Ante Omazic, University of Zagreb, Croatia;

Barbara Herceg Paksic, University of Osijek, Croatia; Vera Palea, Universita degli Studi di Torino, Italy; Dusko Pavlovic, Libertas International

University, Zagreb, Croatia; Igor Pihir, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Dinko Primorac, University North, Koprivnica, Croatia ; Zeljka Primorac,

University of Split, Croatia; Miroslaw Przygoda, University of Warsaw, Poland; Karlis Purmalis, University of Latvia, Latvia; Nicholas Recker,

Metropolitan State University of Denver, USA; Kerry Redican, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA; Humberto Ribeiro, University of Aveiro, Portugal;

Robert Rybnicek, University of Graz, Austria; Amelia Cristina Ferreira da Silva, Polytechnic of Porto, Portugal; Joanna Stawska, University of Lodz,

Poland; Tomasz Studzieniecki, Gdynia Maritime University, Poland; Elzbieta Szymanska, Bialystok University of Technology, Poland; Katarzyna

Szymanska, The State Higher School of Vocational Education in Ciechanow, Poland; Jan Turyna, University of Warsaw, Poland; Ilaria Tutore,

University of Naples Parthenope, Italy; Rebeka Danijela Vlahov, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Ilko Vrankic, University of Zagreb, Croatia; Stanislaw

Walukiewicz, Bialystok University of Technology, Poland; Thomas Will, Agnes Scott College, USA; Li Yongqiang, Victoria University, Australia;

Peter Zabielskis, University of Macau, China; Tao Zeng, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada; Grzegorz Zimon, Rzeszow University of

Technology, Poland; Snezana Zivkovic, University of Nis, Serbia.

Review Committee / Recenzentski Odbor ◼ Marina Klacmer Calopa (President); Ana Aleksic; Sandra Raquel Alves; Ayuba Aminu; Mihovil

Andjelinovic; Josip Arneric; Lidija Bagaric; Tomislav Bakovic; Sanja Blazevic; Leonid Bobrov; Ruzica Brecic; Anita Ceh Casni; Iryna Chernysh;

Mirela Cristea; Oguz Demir; Jasmina Dvorski; Stjepan Dvorski; Robert Fabac; Ivica Filipovic; Sinisa Franjic; Fran Galetic; Mirjana Gligoric; Tomislav

Globan; Anita Goltnik Urnaut; Tomislav Herceg; Irena Jankovic; Emina Jerkovic; Dafna Kariv; Oliver Kesar; Hilal Yildirir Keser; Tatjana Kovac;

Vladimir Kovsca; Angelo Maia Cister; Katarina Marosevic; Vaidotas Matutis; Marjana Merkac Skok; Josip Mikulic; Ljubica Milanovic Glavan; Daniel

Francois Meyer; Natanya Meyer; Guenter Mueller; Ivana Nacinovic Braje; Zlatko Nedelko; Gratiela Georgiana Noja; Zsuzsanna Novak; Alka Obadic;

Claudia Ogrean; Igor Pihir; Najla Podrug; Vojko Potocan; Dinko Primorac; Zeljka Primorac; Sanda Renko; Humberto Ribeiro; Vlasta Roska; Souhaila

Said; Armando Javier Sanchez Diaz; Tomislav Sekur; Lorena Skuflic; Mirko Smoljic; Petar Soric; Mario Spremic; Matjaz Stor; Tomasz Studzieniecki;

Lejla Tijanic; Daniel Tomic; Boris Tusek; Rebeka Daniela Vlahov; Ilko Vrankic; Thomas Will; Zoran Wittine; Tao Zeng; Grzegorz Zimon; Snezana

Zivkovic; Berislav Zmuk.

Organizing Committee / Organizacijski Odbor ◼ Domagoj Cingula (President); Djani Bunja; Marina Klacmer Calopa; Spomenko Kesina; Erlino

Koscak; Tomasz Ochinowski; Miroslaw Przygoda; Michael Stefulj; Rebeka Danijela Vlahov; Sime Vucetic.

Publishing Editor ◼ Spomenko Kesina, Mario Vrazic, Domagoj Cingula

Publisher ◼ Design ◼ Print ◼ Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency, Varazdin, Croatia / University North, Koprivnica, Croatia /

Faculty of Management University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland / Faculty of Law, Economics and Social Sciences Sale - Mohammed V University in

Rabat, Morocco / Polytechnic of Medimurje in Cakovec, Cakovec, Croatia

Printing ◼ 100 CD

ISSN 1849-6903

The Book is open access and double-blind peer reviewed.

Our past Books are indexed and abstracted by ProQuest, EconBIZ, CPCI (Web of Science) and EconLit databases and available for download in a PDF

format from the Economic and Social Development Conference website: http://www.esd-conference.com

© 2019 Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency, Varazdin, Croatia; University North, Koprivnica, Croatia; Faculty of

Management University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; Faculty of Law, Economics and Social Sciences Sale - Mohammed V University in Rabat,

Morocco; Polytechnic of Medimurje in Cakovec, Cakovec, Croatia. All rights reserved. Authors are responsible for the linguistic and technical

accuracy of their contributions. Authors keep their copyrights for further publishing.

CONTENTS

APPLICATION OF AGENT-BASED MODELING IN DECISION-MAKING

MIGRATION POLICY .......................................................................................................1

Abramov Vladimir Ivanovich, Volkova Maria Igorevna

INFLUENCE OF INNOVATION ON THE LINER SHIPPING CONNECTIVITY ........6

Adrianna Karas

INCREASING SUBJECT MOTIVATION OF STUDENTS THROUGH USE OF

AUTHENTIC ADVERTISING MATERIALS ................................................................. 12

Zemfira Aksyanova, Uiliia Ostrovaya

INCREASING COMPETITIVENESS IN HIGHER BUSINESS EDUCATION – THE

CASE OF INTENSE PROJECT........................................................................................ 18 Mirna Leko Simic, Suncica Oberman Peterka, Aleksandar Erceg

THE ROLE OF MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING IN THE CROATIAN HOTEL

INDUSTRY – EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ........................................................................ 26

Andreja Rudancic, Sandra Sokcevic, Marko Akmacic

RECALL OF DIGITAL CONTENT AS PART OF CONSUMER RESPONSE MODEL

............................................................................................................................................. 36 Anida Krajina, Dusan Mladenovic

DEMI MODELS` APPLICATION IN VARIANCE ANALYSIS .................................... 47 Anita Grubisic, Frane Galzina

MODELLING OF MILITARY EXPENDITURE OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC ......... 59 Jakub Odehnal, Jiri Neubauer

MULTITASKING IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS - THE CASE STUDY OF A POLISH

UNIVERSITY ..................................................................................................................... 67

Artur Gajdos, Malgorzata Marchewka, Ewa Stroinska, Justyna Trippner-Hrabi

THE IMPACT OF FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION ON ECONOMIC GROWTH IN

THE CEE COUNTRIES .................................................................................................... 77

Suzana Makreshanska Mladenovska, Biljana Tashevska

FORECASTING CORRECTNESS OF INCURRING CREDIT WITH THE AID OF E.I.

ALTMAN’S, J. GAJDKA’S AND D. STOS’S DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS MODELS

ON THE EXAMPLE OF 200 STUDIED COMPANIES FROM OPOLE AND SILESIAN

PROVINCES WITHIN 2010-2018 .................................................................................... 87 Rafal Parvi

EFFECTIVE CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATE FOR FIRMS ON ZAGREB STOCK

EXCHANGE ....................................................................................................................... 97

Jasenka Bubic, Jelena Vidovic

INTEROPERABILITY OF MACHINE LEARNING SERVICES: A USE CASE ....... 106

Darko Androcec, Andrea Tikvica

USE OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT METHODS IN CROATIAN FIRMS . 114

Ana Roso, Davor Labas

DEVELOPING EPICUREAN HERITAGE TOURISM: THE ROLE OF LOCAL FOOD

AS A COMPONENT OF TOURISM IN BANGLADESH ............................................. 123 Islam Mohammad Hashanat

METHODS OF INTERCONNECTION PRICING SYSTEMS AND TECHNICAL

DRAWING SOFTWARE ................................................................................................ 142

Vojtech Domansky, Miloslav Vyskala

ENTRY EFFECTS UNDER STRATEGIC TRADE POLICY WITH UNIONIZED

FIRMS .............................................................................................................................. 152 Luciano Fanti, Domenico Buccella

THE INFLUENCE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) ON BRAND

EQUITY ............................................................................................................................ 163

Milan Dzupina, Tomas Koprda, Andrej Veselei

ECONOMIC POLICY ASPECTS IN MANAGING LABOUR EMIGRATION FROM

UKRAINE ......................................................................................................................... 174 Dmytro Chylikin

TEACHING THROUGH SOCIAL NETWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: IS

THERE IMPACT ON STUDENTS' ENGAGEMENT? ................................................. 185 Dina Loncaric, Marina Perisic Prodan, Tomislav Car

THE ANALYSIS OF COMPANIES OF THE FUEL SECTOR BASED ON THE

EXAMPLE OF COMPANIES QUOTED ON THE WARSAW STOCK EXCHANGE IN

POLAND AND THEIR FAIR VALUE BETWEEN 2009-2019 ..................................... 193 Rafal Parvi

ROLE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING ON INCOME IN DIFFERENT REGIONS

OF LATVIA ...................................................................................................................... 204

Biruta Sloka, Ginta Tora, Ilze Buligina, Juris Dzelme

SALES CHANNELS AND MEDIA DIGITALIZATION IMPACT ON PEOPLE

VOLUNTARY SAVINGS FOR RETIREMENT ............................................................ 211 Evija Dundure, Biruta Sloka

THE ADJUSTED ACQUISITION PRICE AS ONE OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE

MEASUREMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS .................................................. 219

Ewa Mackowiak

FILLING THE GAP: SOCIAL, URBAN AND TRANSITION DESIGN FOR BUILDING

RESILIENT SOCIETIES ................................................................................................ 227 Franka Grubisic

THE ROLE OF CORPORATIONS’ SOCIAL CONTRACTS IN THE RUSSIAN

SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 235 Maximov Ilya, Kovtun Olga, Ivanenko Marina

THE POLISH INVESTMENT ZONE AS A NEW SOLUTION FOR SUPPORTING

INVESTMENTS AND SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT .................... 243

Joanna Miklinska

FREE COMPETITION AND FISCAL POLICY IN EUROPEAN UNION .................. 253

Maria do Rosario Anjos

COOPERATION BETWEEN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND

COMPANIES (POTENTIAL POSSIBILITIES - REAL LIMITATIONS) ................... 262 Hanna Mackiewicz

KEY INDICATORS OF ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL HEALTH: CASE STUDY IN THE

CZECH REPUBLIC ........................................................................................................ 271

Jakub Horak, Tomas Krulicky

MONEY SAVING - THE CHANCE FOR A HAPPY OLD AGE ................................. 280

Hristea Anca Maria

EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND THEIR ROLE WITH

EMPLOYERS .................................................................................................................. 291 Ivan Peronja, Mario Dadic, Ante Mihanovic

PERCEPTION OF QUALITY OF HOTEL SERVICES ............................................... 306

Robert Stefko, Anna Tomkova, Ivana Ondrijova

DEVELOPING BUSINESS - IT ALIGNMENT SKILLS THROUGH DATA

MANAGEMENT: HIGHER EDUCATION EXAMPLE ............................................... 312 Borna Nikolic, Lucija Ivancic, Ljubica Milanovic Glavan

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MULTIPLE-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING

METHODS: THEIR USE IN MODEL EXAMPLE OF FINANCIAL HEALTH ......... 322

Jaromir Vrbka

DISRUPTION ANALYSIS OF THE ARMY PERSONNEL IN THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF WEAPONS MODERNIZATION SYSTEM (CASE STUDY:

LEOPARD MAIN BATTLE TANK CAVALRY BATTALION) .................................. 331

Yusuf Ali, Suhirwan, Jonni Mahroza, Erna Nuraeni

OVERALL LIFE SATISFACTION IN LATVIA ........................................................... 342

Kate Cipane, Biruta Sloka

CLUSTERS AS A FORM OF EFFECTIVE COORDINATION OF INNOVATION

POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITAL ECONOMY (CASE OF THE RUSSIAN

FEDERATION) ................................................................................................................ 352

Aleksandr Kurochkin

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AS THE MOST SIGNIFFICANT SOCIO-ECONOMIC

INDICATOR .................................................................................................................... 358 Lyudmila Rudi, TatyanaTropnikova

ANALYSIS OF THE LABOUR MARKET IN CROATIA ............................................ 370 Marina Lolic Cipcic

CONSTRUCTING AND TESTING INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING STUDENTS’

PERCEPTIONS OF A UNIVERSITY AND ITS SMART DIMENSIONS ................... 380

Mario Jadric, Maja Cukusic

THE REGIONAL DIMENSION OF POVERTY - THE ROMANIAN CASE .............. 390

Nela Steliac

PHYSICAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS AND LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY ACROSS

COUNTRIES – PANEL APPROACH ............................................................................ 403 Predrag Trpeski, Marijana Cvetanoska, Kristijan Kozheski

FINANCIAL ASSETS OF HOUSEHOLDS IN CROATIA – CHANGES IN

PREFERENCES: RESONS AND CONSEQUENCES ................................................... 411

Petar Misevic, Zvonimir Savic, Luka Burilovic

DOES THE YEAR 2020 BRING MAJOR CHANGES TO THE REAL ESTATE

MARKET OF GREEN BUILDINGS? ............................................................................ 420 Raluca Florentina Cretu

CHALLENGES OF THE FORMAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT EDUCATION IN

THE SENET REGION ..................................................................................................... 430 Rebeka D. Vlahov Golomejic

OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING WITHOUT COMMENCING EMPLOYMENT:

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES .................................................................... 436

Renata Relja, Toni Popovic, Anita Marasovic

INVESTMENT EFFICIENCY OF TOURISM COMPANIES ...................................... 447

Catia Rosario

COMPARISON OF HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS OF FINLAND AND TURKEY

........................................................................................................................................... 453 Sinem Dal

SEAPORT - CITY COOPERATION ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE CITY OF GDYNIA

........................................................................................................................................... 459

Slawomir Skiba

METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF ASSESSING THE MARKET STRUCTURE:

CONCENTRATION AND EFFICIENCY ...................................................................... 467 Sofia Lyubyashenko

CROSS-REGIONAL COOPERATION IN THE EU FOR EFFECTIVE INNOVATION

DEVELOPMENT: EXPERIENCE FOR RUSSIA ......................................................... 474 Alexander Kurochkin, Svetlana Morozova

THE MOUNTAIN PARADIGM: THE ROLE OF THE ATLAS MOUNTAINS IN

SHAPING THE LIFE OF MOROCCAN MOUNTAIN INHABITANTS ..................... 487

Jamal Fezza, Sadik Maliki

THE PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTION AS A PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL

LABOR LAW ................................................................................................................... 496 Maria Joao Mimoso, Bruna Duarte

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SMES IN ICT INDUSTRY: BUSINESS MODEL

PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................................ 502

Tihana Koprivnjak

EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF CONSUMER IDENTIFICATION WITH USERS OF

THE SPORTS CLUB SOCIAL NETWORK .................................................................. 511 Zeljka Marcinko Trkulja, Jasmina Dlacic, Denis Tomse

THE ROLE OF RISK MANAGEMENT IN CORPORATE DECISION-MAKING.... 521 Veronika Machova

THE EFFECTS OF GLOBALIZATION ON GROWTH IN BRICS ECONOMIES ... 528 Aleksej Kondulukov, Vladimir Simic

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN RESOURCES: AN

OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 537 Vlatka Sekovanic, Sandra Lovrencic

INCREASING QUALITY AND PROFITABILITY OF RESTAURANT INDUSTRY

THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE MICHELIN GUIDE IN THE REPUBLIC

OF CROATIA .................................................................................................................. 545 Dominik Vukusic, Alica Grilec, Josip Mikulic

REVITALIZATION OF NIGERIA’S SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN

THE PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND

DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 553 Ayuba A. Aminu, Aliyu Shugaba, Yahaya Yunusa Malgwi

THE IMPACT OF THE SOLID WASTE FEE SCHEME ON THE GENERATION AND

SEGREGATION OF WASTE BY THE RESIDENTS OF GDYNIA ............................ 561

Karolina Gwarda

BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROFITS: A

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE CZECHIA AND SLOVAKIA .............................. 568 Zuzana Rowland

ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF POSTMODERN:

FUTURE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP OR ADAPTATION TO DEVELOPMENT OF

POSTMODERN SOCIETY ............................................................................................. 578

Josko Lozic, Marin Milkovic, Ines Lozic

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION SOLIDARITY FUND IN

BUILDING RESILIENT REGIONS ............................................................................... 591 Lela Tijanic, Petra Korent

EXPORT ACTIVITIES ANALYSIS OF THE NOVOSIBIRSK REGION COMPANIES

........................................................................................................................................... 602

Ilya Maximov, Olga Kovtun, Marina Ivanenko, Vera Ryaboshlyk

49th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – "Building Resilient Society" - Zagreb, 13-14 December 2019

77

THE IMPACT OF FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION ON ECONOMIC

GROWTH IN THE CEE COUNTRIES

Suzana Makreshanska Mladenovska

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje,

Faculty of Economics, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

[email protected]

Biljana Tashevska

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje,

Faculty of Economics, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

There has been a global trend of public sector decentralization over the last few decades,

justified by the fact that transferring public revenues and expenditures from central to local

government level is expected to deliver greater public sector efficiency, higher economic

growth rates and better overall macroeconomic performance. In this paper, we empirically

investigate if fiscal decentralization enhances or hinders economic growth in Central and

European (CEE) member countries of the European Union. Using panel data for the period

1992-2012, we try to determine whether fiscal decentralization, measured as the share of local

government revenues/expenditures in general government revenues/expenditures has a positive

effect on the GDP per capita growth rate. According to our findings, fiscal decentralization has

an adverse effect on the economic growth rate in the CEE countries. This is in line with the

argument that in developing countries decentralization could fail to deliver the expected

positive impulse on growth if certain economic and institutional preconditions are absent. A

negative impact is also found to come from the size of the public sector and inflation. On the

other hand, the improvement of the fiscal balance and the openness of the economy have a

positive impact on growth.

Keywords: CEE countries, Economic growth, Fiscal decentralization

1. INTRODUCTION

There has been a global trend of public sector decentralization over the last few decades, with

the expectation that transferring public revenues and expenditures from central to local

governments would deliver greater public sector efficiency, higher economic growth and better

overall macroeconomic performance. Developed countries were first to give their local

authorities greater fiscal power, autonomy and functions. Emerging countries followed,

however challenged by their institutional framework and capacity. Some authors find a positive

correlation between a country’s level of economic development and the level of public sector

decentralization (Pommerehne, 1976; Panizza 1999). Oates (1993) shows that larger and more

developed countries (with higher GDP per capita) have a higher level of fiscal decentralization.

Why is this the case? One view sees decentralization as a luxury good, hence the increase in

GDP p.c. increases the “demand” for decentralization. Decentralization becomes more

attractive for taxpayers, since the advantages and benefits of this process begin to surpass the

potential problems and disadvantages, present in less developed countries (Bahl and Linn,

1992). Another explanation is that most developing countries that implement intensive

decentralization reforms have inherited highly centralized systems in the moment of gaining

independence. Conyers (1990) claims that a country’s decentralization depends on the length

of the time period from its independence and the size of centralization of the previous

administrative system.


78

Many authors agree that fiscal decentralization could in turn have a positive impact on growth,

through enhancing public sector efficiency, resource allocation and transparency (Oates, 1993;

Martinez-Vazquez and McNab, 2006 etc.). According to Oates (1972), local governments are

more efficient in resource allocation in the public sector, because they are better in identifying

citizens’ preferences for public goods and services (allocative efficiency) and are at the same

time in a position to provide public goods and services with lower costs (productive efficiency)

than central governments. Some argue that the positive effects of decentralization of economic

growth are more pronounced in developing than in developed countries, due to their

institutional characteristics. In these countries, decentralization is expected to induce larger

efficiency gains, resulting from the high transaction and administrative costs inherited from the

centralized political and administrative systems (Shah, 1994; 1999). However, the positive

impact on growth might not realize, if there is no well-designed and implemented process of

decentralization and if local governments and institutions have insufficient capacity for an

effective realization of the decentralized functions (Prud’Homme, 1995). Rodriguez-Pose and

Kroijer (2009) argue that in countries lacking appropriate institutions, instead of enhancing

economic growth and human capital, fiscal decentralization could have an inverse effect on

economic growth. Other authors argue that there is a positive, yet nonlinear link between

decentralization and economic growth (Wallis and Oates, 1988). Instead of a linear relationship,

it is more realistic to expect that there is a certain optimal level of public sector decentralization,

which has the strongest positive impact on economic growth (Thiessen, 2003). Thus, according

to Blochliger and Egert (2013), countries with lower initial level of public sector

decentralization can expect more pronounced positive effects of decentralization on economic

growth, compared to countries that have already reached a higher level of fiscal

decentralization. This paper aims to contribute to the scarce literature on the effects of fiscal

decentralization on economic growth in the Central and East European countries by exploring

this relationship for the period 1992-2012. Previous studies of the CEE countries include: Ebel

and Yilmaz (2002), Enikolopov and Zhuravskaya (2003), Rodriguez-Pose and Kroijer (2009),

Aristovnik (2012), Slavinskaite (2017). The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The

second section gives a brief review of the empirical literature on the effects of fiscal

decentralization on economic growth. The third section presents the applied data and

methodology, followed by a discussion of the empirical results and concluding remarks.

2. EMPIRICAL LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a growing body of literature focused on assessing the effects of fiscal decentralization

on economic growth in the last several decades.1 However, it has produced ambiguous results,

as there are many studies that find evidence for a positive, a negative, or no significant impact

of decentralization on growth (for an extensive review of studies see Szabo, 2017, or the meta-

analysis of empirical studies provided by Baskaran, Feld and Schnellenbach, 2014). The

existing empirical literature on the impact of decentralization on economic growth is dominated

by studies based on large and heterogeneous samples of developed and developing countries

(Davoodi and Zou, 1998; Woller and Phillips, 1998; Тhiessen, 2003; Enikolopov and

Zhuravskaya, 2003; Iimi, 2005; Martinez–Vasquez and McNab, 2006; Thornton, 2007;

Rodriguez – Pose and Kroijer, 2009; Im, 2010; Rodriguez – Pose and Ezcurra, 2011; Blochliger

and Egert, 2013), whereas a smaller number of studies explore this link on a single country

case, mostly exploring China (e.g. Zhang and Zou, 1998; Lin and Liu, 2000; Jin and Zou, 2005)

or the USA (e.g. Xie et al., 1999; Akai and Sakata, 2002).

1 It is still far smaller (especially for the CEE countries) than the vast empirical literature testing the relationship between decentralization and the size and efficiency of the public sector. This might be related to the fact that economic growth is not of special interest in the public finance theory, because the public sector does not have a direct role in increasing growth, but its role is mainly to provide favorable conditions and not hinder growth.


79

There is no consensus among authors about the direction in which decentralization affects the

economic growth. Numerous studies confirm the existence of a significant positive relationship

between fiscal decentralization and economic growth (Lin and Liu, 2000; Akai and Sakata,

2002; Thiessen, 2003; Iimi, 2005; Buser, 2011; Blochliger and Egert, 2013; Slavinskaite, 2017).

Yet, some studies show that decentralization slows economic growth (Davoodi and Zou, 1998;

Zhang and Zou, 1998; Enikolopov and Zhuravskaya, 2003; Jin and Zou, 2005; Rodriguez –

Pose and Ezcurra, 2011; Baskaran and Feld, 2013), or that it does not have any impact on

growth (Woller and Phillips, 1998; Thornton, 2007; Asatryan and Feld, 2015). Unlike most

studies that assume the existence of a linear relationship between decentralization and economic

growth, Thiessen (2003) shows that although positive, the link is not linear, but has an inverse

“U” shape. This means that decentralization has a positive effect on growth up until the country

reaches a certain (optimal) level of decentralization, but above that level it begins to hinder

economic growth. The diminishing returns on decentralization are confirmed by Blochliger and

Egert (2013), who find that countries with a lower level of decentralization can expect more

pronounced positive effects on economic growth. Some studies find a different impact of fiscal

decentralization on growth in developed and developing countries. Davoodi and Zou (1998),

Im (2010) and Slavinskaite (2017) find no significant relation in developed countries and

provide mixed results for developing countries: Davoodi and Zou (1998) find a negative effect,

Im (2010) finds a negative effect in semi-developed countries and no significant effect in

developing countries and Slavinskaite (2017) finds a positive effect in less developed EU

countries (significant at the 10% confidence level). Canavire-Bacarreza et al. (2019) found a

small, but positive effect of revenue and expenditure decentralization in developed countries

and no significant effect in developing countries. If we analyze separately the effects of

decentralization of public revenues, public expenditures and the vertical imbalance, recent

studies conclude that revenue decentralization has more pronounced stimulating effects on

economic growth (Rodriguez – Pose and Kroijer, 2009; Blochliger and Egert, 2013; Gemmel

et al., 2013), while the vertical fiscal imbalance has pronounced adverse effects on growth

(Rodriguez – Pose and Kroijer, 2009). Finally, decentralization can have different effects on

economic growth depending on the influence of other institutional and political factors in a

country (Iimi, 2005; Enikolopov and Zhuravskaya, 2003; Buser, 2011). For example,

Enkilopov and Zhuravskaya (2003) conclude that decentralization can stimulate or hinder

economic growth in developing countries, depending on the quality of political parties and the

political governance in the country. Aristovnik (2012) relies on Buser’s (2011) finding that

decentralization has a greater positive effect on promoting growth in the presence of a sound

institutional environment, to try to explain the smaller success of fiscal decentralization in the

Eastern European economies.

3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

3.1. Model

In the specification of the empirical model for investigation of the effects of decentralization

on economic growth we start from the classical model of exogenous economic growth (Solow,

1956), according to which growth is a function of two production factors: (labour (population)

and physical capital). Further, in the empirical model the human capital is added. According to

many authors, the countries that invest more in human capital have higher innovation rates (new

products and technologies), and thus have a tendency to grow faster than other countries

(Romer, 1994). In the end, we include in the model macroeconomic policy variables, following

Barro’s (1991) model of endogenous growth and the Levine и Renelt (1992) model. These

variables are: size of the public sector, macroeconomic stability (fiscal balance, inflation rate),

openness of the economy etc.


80

Hence, the empirical model takes the following general form:

𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑡 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽2ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡 +𝛽3𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽4𝑚𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑡+ 𝛽5𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑡 + 𝑢𝑖𝑡

We estimate an unbalanced (due to data availability) panel regression model, which allows us

to use a larger number of observations for multiple countries and multiple periods. A fixed

effects model was used, as suggested by the Hausmann. White cross-section weights and first

order autoregression component (AR1) were used in order to correct heteroscedasticity and

serial correlation, respectively.

3.2. Data and variables

The empirical investigation was conducted on a sample of 11 countries from Central and

Eastern Europe (CEE countries), over the period 1992–2012. Due to data limitations, the sample

includes only the CEE countries that are EU members: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic,

Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. A restraining

factor of our research is the fact that, unlike the case of old EU member states, for the new EU

member states, the time series are relatively short and macroeconomic data cannot be found

before the 1990s. On the other hand, we used the decentralization data series from the Fiscal

Decentralization Database of the World Bank that only provides decentralization data until

2012. Therefore, due to the limited and short time series, in this paper we do not examine the

long-term effects of fiscal decentralization. The dependent variable in the regression model is

the economic growth rate, measured by the annual real growth rate of GDP per capita. The main

explanatory variable in the model is fiscal decentralization, measured by two main indicators:

government expenditure decentralization (share of local government expenditures in total

government expenditures) and government revenue decentralization (share of local government

revenues in total government revenues). The physical capital is captured by two variables: the

ratio of gross savings to GDP and the gross fixed capital formation to GDP. The choice of the

appropriate indicators of human capital was not simple, taking that most of the tested variables

proved to be statistically insignificant. On the other hand, it is hard to assume that human capital

is not important to economic growth, so probably the reason for the statistical insignificance of

these variables comes from the limitations and discontinuity of the time series. Out of the tested

variables, we decided to include: secondary school enrollment ratio and the public expenditures

for education. Other tested variables include: tertiary education enrollment rate, public revenues

for science and research, as well as the number of patent applications and researchers per

million citizens. The impact of the macroeconomic policy is presented in the model with the

following indicators: public sector size i.e. government expenditures to GDP, budget balance

to GDP, inflation (annual growth rate of CPI), and the trade openness (ratio of imports and

exports of goods and services to GDP). In order to increase the explaining power of the model,

we include several demographic variables that are most often found in existing empirical studies

of economic growth, such as: population growth, urban population and dependent population

ratio. A detailed description of data and their sources are given in the Annex. The tables below

provide descriptive statistics for the variables there are our main focus and refer to the level of

economic growth and the level of fiscal decentralization. The descriptive statistic for GDP per

capita and GDP per capita growth rate (table 1) shows that, among the CEE countries, the lowest

average level of GDP p.c. is recorded in Bulgaria (3 131 USD), Romania (4 241 USD) and

Latvia (5 238 USD), and the highest average level of GDP p.c. in Slovenia (15 637 USD),

Czech Republic (11 447 USD) and Slovakia (10 205 USD). As for the economic growth rate,

measured by GDP p.c. annual growth, over the analyzed period, Estonia recorded the highest


81

average growth rate (5.07%), followed by Poland (3.68%), Latvia (2.87%) and Croatia (2.72%),

while Romania, Czech Republic and Slovenia recorded the lowest growth rates (all below 2%).

Table 1: Descriptive statistics for GDP per capita (authors’ calculations)

Country GDP per capita, US $ GDP per capita, growth rate

Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max

Bulgaria 3131 829 2218 4692 2.42 4.94 -8.56 10.82

Croatia 9309 1499 6532 11375 2.72 3.99 -6.83 10.04

Czech Rep. 11447 2200 8606 14612 1.68 4.09 -11.40 6.73

Estonia 8626 2706 4637 12275 5.07 6.10 -13.93 13.02

Hungary 8482 1745 5230 11534 2.01 3.49 -11.89 7.10

Latvia 5238 1734 3166 8999 2.87 7.87 -31.18 13.27

Lithuania 6780 2221 3819 10549 2.40 9.17 -21.17 11.15

Poland 7271 2119 4380 10753 3.68 3.03 -7.34 7.02

Romania 4241 922 3088 6073 1.66 5.55 -12.14 9.75

Slovakia 10205 2637 6822 15065 2.19 5.05 -14.64 10.46

Slovenia 15637 3182 10787 20683 1.77 4.35 -8.96 6.36

Descriptive statistics for the decentralization variables are presented in table 2. Over the

analyzed period, the most decentralized CEE countries (above 20% share of local government

expenditures in total government expenditures) are: Poland, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania and

Estonia, while the least decentralized countries (below 15% share of local government

expenditures in total government expenditures) are: Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Slovenia.

The same conclusion stands for the revenue decentralization. CEE countries with a higher level

of expenditure decentralization also have a higher level of revenue decentralization and vice

versa. If we analyze the standard deviation, we can see that Slovakia, Romania and Poland

recorded the largest increase in expenditure and revenue decentralization (above 5 p.p.).

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for fiscal decentralization variables (Authors’ calculation)

Country Expenditure Decentralization Revenue Decentralization

Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max

Bulgaria 14.94 1.87 11.25 18.62 15.86 1.73 12.42 18.19

Croatia 9.32 0.54 8.47 10.13 11.69 0.53 10.81 12.34

Czech Rep. 17.95 1.86 15.16 19.98 22.85 2.31 19.58 25.94

Estonia 21.47 2.54 17.58 24.35 21.87 1.98 17.70 25.06

Hungary 21.75 1.10 19.85 23.32 23.84 1.64 19.81 26.57

Latvia 22.32 1.84 18.01 24.94 24.91 0.81 23.46 26.40

Lithuania 21.58 2.31 18.35 27.65 22.92 3.20 18.84 30.64

Poland 23.56 4.45 13.81 28.95 27.43 5.05 16.61 33.02

Romania 15.97 5.12 8.74 22.90 19.44 4.97 11.95 26.64

Slovakia 11.36 5.03 4.55 16.18 13.09 5.46 5.59 18.40

Slovenia 13.46 2.99 8.37 16.35 16.16 3.38 10.76 19.92

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 3 summarizes the results of the estimated panel regressions. The regression equations (1)

and (3) refer to the effects of decentralization of government expenditures on the GDP growth

rate, while the equation (2) and (4) refer to the effects of decentralization of government

revenues. The equations (3) and (4) result from a process of individual testing and exclusion of

insignificant variables, which allowed for an additional testing and confirming the validity of

the relationship between decentralization and growth.


82

Table 3: Panel regression results (Authors’ calculations)

Dependent variable: GDP per capita, annual growth rate

Independent variables:

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Exp decentralization -0.313***

(0.092)

-0.200*

(0.113)

Rev decentralization

-0.288***

(0.083)

-0.226**

(0.115)

Government

expenditures

-0.364**

(0.144)

-0.355***

(0.133)

Budget balance 0.529***

(0.133)

0.479***

(0.117)

0.581**

(0.230)

0.567***

(0.216)

Inflation -0.381***

(0.113)

-0.359***

(0.100)

-0.003*)

(0.002_

-0.004***

(0.001)

Openness 0.254***

(0.064)

0.248***

(0.066)

0.118***

(0.042)

0.105***

(0.039)

Savings -0.265

(0.291)

-0.316

(0.272)

Capital 0.662**

(0.306)

0.603**

(0.287)

0.434***

(0.160)

0.387***

(0.144)

School -0.104

(0.099)

-0.139

(0.094)

Education

expenditures

0.134

(0.216)

0.133

(0.193)

Population -1.501***

(0.543)

-1.558***

(0.590)

-1.506***

(0.330)

-1.611***

(0.355)

Urbanization -2.066**

(0.814)

-1.911**

(0.753)

-1.289***

(0.597)

-1.211**

(0.576)

Dependency 1.637***

(0.347)

1.584***

(0.330)

Constant 54.103

(39.909)

52.784

(35.359)

66.004**

(32.626)

64.727**

(32.697)

AR(1) 0.443***

(0.105)

0.420***

(0.115)

0.424***

(0.126)

0.375***

(0.119)

R^2 0.746 0.753 0.539 0.538

F-statistic 10.394*** 10.943*** 10.536*** 10.612***

Durbin-Watson

statistics

2.086 2.159 2.013 1.972

Cross - section 11 11 11 11

Sample 1996-2012 1996-2012 1992-2012 1992-2012

Observations 110 110 181 181

Note: The White heteroskedasticity consistent standard errors are given below the

coefficients.

*10% level significance, **5% level significance, ***1% level significance.

The regression results indicate that decentralization of government revenues and government

expenditures, ceteris paribus, has a statistically significant negative effect on economic growth

rates in CEE countries, confirming the results of Davoodi and Zou (1998), Rodriguez-Pose and


83

Kroijer2 (2009), Im (2010). These finding is in line with some authors’ skepticism that

decentralization in developing countries, where certain economic, political and institutional

preconditions are not met, can ultimately have an adverse instead of a positive effect on growth

(Litvack et al., 1998; Dabla-Norris, 2006 etc.). Namely, decentralization is a multi-dimensional

process and its effects on macroeconomic performances do not depend solely on the level of

decentralization of public revenues and expenditures, but also on other factors, like the quality

and functioning of institutions, the public administration and the entire political system in

general. Such results are a motivation for further research of the macroeconomic implications

of decentralization, where beside fiscal decentralization, indicators of the administrative and

political dimensions of the decentralization process of the CEE countries will be included. The

results also indicate that the size of the public sector, i.e. the ratio of total general expenditures

to GDP, also exhibits a statistically significant adverse effect on growth. On the other hand,

higher public saving, i.e. improvement of the budget balance, is, as expected, growth enhancing.

Among the statistically significant variables with a positive impact is also the physical capital,

measured by the gross fixed capital formation to GDP. Unlike it, none of the tested human

capital variables had a statistically significant effect. Contrary to expectations, the secondary

school enrollment ratio even showed a negative coefficient, while a positive effect on the human

capital variable is provided only by the size of the public expenditures in education. Since it is

difficult to believe that human capital has no influence or has a negative influence on growth,

we believe this is attributed to the weakness of the chosen indicators and even more to the

limitations of the data series. As for the tested demographic variables, we found that population

growth rate and urban population share in total population have a significant negative effect,

while the dependency ratio has a significant positive effect to economic growth. Regarding the

other tested variables, in line with expectations, the inflation rate proved to have a significant

negative effect on growth, while the trade openness of the economy has a positive impact on

growth.

5. CONCLUSION

The main purpose of the paper was to contribute to the empirical literature on fiscal

decentralization, by estimating the impact of fiscal decentralization on economic growth in the

Central and Eastern European countries for the period 1992-2012. The existing body of research

provides mixed results regarding the positive or negative impact of fiscal decentralization on

economic growth. The empirical assessment in this paper showed that fiscal decentralization,

measured both by the share of local government revenues in total government revenues and by

the share of local government expenditures in total government expenditures, has an adverse

effect on economic growth in the Central and Eastern European countries. These findings are

in line with the argument that in developing countries decentralization could fail to deliver the

expected positive impulse on growth if certain economic and institutional preconditions are

absent. Namely, in developing and former centrally planned economies, the quality of

institutions, public administration and the political system in general, are less developed than

in developed countries and could prevent fiscal decentralization from delivering a positive

impulse on growth. Concerning the other independent variables, a negative impact is also found

to come from the size of the public sector and inflation. On the other hand, the improvement of

the fiscal balance and the openness of the economy have a growth-enhancing effect. Such

results are a motivation for future research of the macroeconomic implications of

decentralization for a larger sample of all EU countries, divided in two sub-samples (new EU

member states and old EU member states) in order to see if the macroeconomic implications of

decentralization differ in the two groups.

2 For public expenditure and transfers.


84

Additionally, because longer data series are available for the old EU member states, we would

be able to investigate if the link between decentralization and growth is linear or parabolic, as

some authors suggest.

LITERATURE:

1. Akai, N. and Sakata, M. (2002). Fiscal decentralization contributes to economic growth:

Evidence from state-level cross section data for United States. Journal of Urban Economics,

52.

2. Aristovnik, A. (2012). Fiscal decentralization in Eastern Europe: a twenty-year perspective.

MPRA paper no. 39316.

3. Asatryan, Z. and Feld, L.P. (2015). Revisiting the link between growth and federalism: A

Bayesian model averaging approach. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(3), pp.772-

781.

4. Bahl, R. and Linn, J. (1992). Urban public finance in developing countries. New York:

Oxford University Press.

5. Baskaran, T. and Feld, L.P. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in OECD

countries: is there a relationship?. Public finance review, 41(4), pp.421-445.

6. Blochliger, H. and Egert, B. (2013). Decentralisation and Economic Growth - Part 2: The

Impact on Economic Activity, Productivity and Investment. OECD Working Papers on

Fiscal Federalis, No.15.

7. Buser, W. (2011). The impact of fiscal decentralization on economics performance in high-

income OECD nations: an institutional approach. Public Choice, 149(1), pp. 31-48.

8. Canavire-Bacarreza, G. J., Martinez-Vazquez, J. and Yedgenov, B. (2019). Identifying and

Disentangling the Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on Economic Growth. Andrew Young

School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series, (19-15).

9. Conyers, D. (1990). Centralization and development planning: a comparative perspective,

In P. De Valk and K. Wekwete (eds.), Decentralizing for participatory planning, pp. 15-

34. Avebury, England: Aldershot.

10. Dabla-Norris, E. (2006). The Challenge of Fiscal Decentralisation in Transition Countries.

Comparative Economic Studies, 48(1), 100–131.

11. Davoodi, H. and Zou, H. (1998). Decentralization and economic growth revisited: A cross-

country study, Journal of Urban Economics, 43(2), pp. 244-257.

12. Enikolopov, R. and Zhuravskaya, E. (2007). Decentralization and political institutions,

Journal of public economics, 91(11), pp. 2261-2290.

13. Gemmell, N., Kneller, R. and Sanz, I. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth:

Spending versus revenue decentralization. Economic Inquiry, 51(4), 1915-1931

14. Iimi, A. (2005). Decentralization and economic growth revisited: an empirical note. Journal

of Urban Economics. 57(3), pp. 449-461.

15. Im, T. (2010). Does Decentralization Reform Always Increase Economic Growth?: A Cross

Country Comparison of the Performance. International Journal of Public Administration.

33(10), 508-520.

16. Jin, J. and Zou, H. (2005). Fiscal decentralization, revenue and expenditures assignments

and growth in China, Journal of Asian Economics, 16.

17. Kendrick, J.W. (1976). The formation and stocks of total capital. NBER Books.

18. Levine, R. and Renelt, D. (1992). A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth

regressions. The American Economic Review, 82(4), pp. 942-963.

19. Lin, Y.J. and Liu, Z. (2000). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in China,

Economic Development and Cultural Change, 49(1), pp.1-21.

20. Litvack, J.I., Ahmad, J. and Bird, R.M. (1998). Rethinking decentralization in developing

countries. World Bank Publications.


85

21. Martinez-Vazquez, J. and McNab, R.M. (2006). Fiscal decentralization, macrostability and

growth, Hacienda Publica Espanola. Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, 179(4), pp. 25-49.

22. Oates, W.E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

23. Oates, W.E. (1993). Fiscal decentralization and economic development. National tax

journal, 46(2), pp. 237-243.

24. Panizza, U. (1999). On the determinants of fiscal centralization: Theory and evidence,

Journal of public economics, 74(1), pp. 97-139.

25. Pommerehne, W.W. (1976). Quantitative aspects of federalism: A study of six countries

Discussion Papers Series, 74, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.

26. Prud'Homme, R. (1995). The dangers of decentralization. The World bank research

observer, 10(2), pp. 201-220.

27. Rodriguez-Pose, A. and Kroijer, A. (2009). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth

in Central and Eastern Europe. Growth and Change, 40(3), pp. 387-417.

28. Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Ezcurra, R. (2011). Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic

growth? Evidence from the OECD countries, Journal of Economic Geography, 11(4), pp.

619-643.

29. Romer, P.M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. The Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 8(1), pp. 3-22.

30. Shah, A. (1994). The Reform of Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Developing and

Emerging Market Economies. Washington, D.C: World Bank.

31. Shah, A. (1999). Fiscal federalism and macroeconomic governance: For better or for worse,

In K. Fukasaku, and L.R. De Mello (eds.), Fiscal decentralization in emerging countries:

governance issues. pp. 37-54, Paris: OECD.

32. Slavinskaite, N. (2017). Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth in Selected

European Countries, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(4), pp. 745–757.

33. Solow, R.M. (1956) Contribution to the theory of economic growth, The Quarterly Journal

of Economics, 70(1), pp. 65-94.

34. Thiessen, U. (2003). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in high income OECD

countries. Fiscal Studies. 24

35. Thornton, J. (2007). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth reconsidered. Journal of

Urban Economics, 61.

36. Xie, D., Zou, H.,and Davoodi, H. (1999). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in

the United States, Journal of Urban Economics, 45.

37. Wallis, J.J. and Oates, E.W. (1988). Decentralization in the public sector: an empirical study

of state and local government. Fiscal Federalism: Quantative Studies. pp. 5-32. University

of Chicago Press.

38. Woller, G.M. and Phillips, K. (1998). Fiscal decentralization and IDC economic growth, an

empirical investigation. The Journal of Development Studies, 34(4), pp. 139-148

39. Zhang, T. and Zou, H. (1998). Fiscal decentralization, public spending and economic

growth in China. Journal of Public Economics, 67.


86

APPENDIX

Table A.1: Variables: description and sources

Variable Description Source

Economic

growth GDP per capita growth (annual %)

World Development

Indicators, World Bank

Expenditure

decentralization

Local expenditures, % of general

government expenditures

Fiscal Decentralization

Database, World Bank

Revenue

decentralization

Local revenues, % of general government

revenues

Fiscal Decentralization

Database, World Bank

Government

expenditures

General government expenditures, % of

GDP

World Economic Outlook

Database, IMF

Budget Budget balance (surplus/deficit), % of

GDP

World Economic Outlook

Database, IMF

Inflation Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) World Economic Outlook

Database, IMF

Openness Trade (sum of exports and imports of

goods and services, % of GDP)

World Development


Savings Gross savings, % of GDP World Development


Capital Gross fixed capital formation, % of GDP World Development


Patents Patent applications, residents and

nonresidents

World Development


Researchers Researchers in R&D (per million people) World Development


School

School enrollment, secondary (ratio of

total enrollment to the population of the

age group)

World Development


University

School enrollment, tertiary (ratio of total

enrollment to the population of the age

group)

World Development


Education

expenditures

Public spending on education, % of

government expenditure

World Development


Research

Expenditures

Public spending on research and

development, % of government

expenditure

World Development


Population Population growth (annual %) World Development


Urbanization Urban population, % of total population World Development


Dependency

Age dependency ratio (people younger

than 15 or older than 64, % of working-

age population)

World Development


Documents

Economic and Social Development - Ss. Cyril and Methodius