romania-between decentralization and …...romania-between decentralization and deconcentration 5...

Scientific Papers (www.scientificpapers.org) Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology

1

Vol. V, Issue 6 December 2015

Romania-Between Decentralization and

Deconcentration

Author: Constantinescu Carmen Maria, The Bucharest University

of Economic Studies, [email protected]

The present paper studies the level of local financial autonomy in our country,

in relation to the capacity of local communities to make public expenditures.

Our own local targets Revenues analysis and main components, discussing

the impact Transfers and subsidies that May have on the degree of local

financial Decentralization, as they are Considered own Revenues or not.

According to the results of our research, Romania's present time reached only

the stage of deconcentration, Because Of Two Reasons: poor local financial

Decision independence and Reduced and unproportional economic

development.

Keywords: Financial Decentralization, Hunter's index, own Revenues,

deconcentration, public Transfers and subsidies.

JEL Classification: H72

Introduction

After 1990, democracy system implementation in Romania gave to local

communities new responsibilities, especially in the management of public

affairs of the town or of the county, due to the need of compatibility with

the situation in European public administration. Thus, in our country have

developed a series of regulations that targeted financial and decisional

decentralization of public services by local government, most often

unsuccessful due to lack of local institutional capacity to effectively manage

Romania-Between Decentralization and Deconcentration

2


these responsibilities, the restricted freedom of decision, the funding

problems, the lack of transparency induced by incomplete legislation and

some other problems.

The deficienciencies of decentralization implementation process

were and still are many, and most have been generated as a result of the fact

that the central public administration fails to lead reform. Change is

incipient in all areas, but basically incomplete because of political instability

and legislative inconsistency.

In the process of decentralization of public finances, Romania is

facing numerous problems: the distribution of the deducted amounts from

income tax and value added tax, the undervaluation of the regions’ role, the

lack of independence in setting local taxes, the local loan limit, the absence

of citizen involvement in public affairs, the overlap of authority, etc.

Research stage Decentralisation is a complex process, with inter-sector implications. No

centralized system can respond to the infinite variety of needs of local

communities as well as local authorities elected, which respond for their acts

in front of citizens. The decentralization process is conducted for the benefit

of individual, by strengthening the power and role of local government in

order to develop economic and social development of administrative-

territorial units.

Identified as the starting point for economic and social progress

(Faguet (2002),Manor (1999 )), decentralization of public finances brings

many benefits in terms of serving the needs of the population1, because

governments become more attentive and responsive to specific local needs

(Wallis & Oates (1988), Manor (1999), Pirion-Sall (1988), Smoke (2001 ),

Rondinelli et al. (1983)), enhancing citizen access to public services by

community right ( and obligation) to participate to the decision-making

process and its implementation. The theory of fiscal federalism (Musgraves

(1959), Oates (1972)) emphasizes that folding taxation and public spending

on taxpayer’ needs and capacity increases the individual welfare, which

represents the objective of public finances.

1 Uchimura, H., Jütting, J. P. (2009). Fiscal Decentralization, Chinese Style: Good for Health Outcomes?,World Development, Elsevier, vol.37(12);


3


The financial decentralization is extremely delicate and complex,

having as determinants central and local government quality, the quality of

democracy, the size of the country the homogeneity of preferences strongly

manifests as country is smaller and financial decentralization no longer

serves any purpose), and income differences between localities or regions,

full amounts of per capita amounts (larger discrepancies involves central

government intervention by public money redistribution, so

decentralization is no longer attractive to rich areas)2 . Also, the level of

urbanization and the diversity of ethnic groups have a significant impact, as

the different cultural population generates a diversification of the range of

preferences.

The financial decentralization refers to the local government right

to collect own revenues according their specific needs. In the same time,

financial decentralization requires freedom of selection of targets local

revenues to be directed to, meaning free destinations and unrestricted local

public spending (respecting, of course, local budget capacity). So,

decentralization can be studied in terms of local public income and the

independence and flexibility in selecting and setting them according to

community’s financial capacity, but also through the local public expenses

and the freedom to choose between investment or consumption objectives

(and their typology in terms of public services), according to own local

specific needs.

The degree of authority, accountability and financial resources

redistribution, necessary to provide public services at different levels of

government decentralization offers three distinct manifestations:

devolution, delegation and deconcentration3.

Devolution is a bottom-up process (bottom-up), that suppose that

the local government is constitutionally entitled to manage permanently its

business, that including the possibility of introducing or

increasing/decreasing local tax and fees and to establish local public

expenses destinations and the amounts allocated on each of these, of course,

with limited interference from the government. The process involves almost

2Thießen, U. (2000). Fiscal Federalism in Western European and Selected Other Countries: Centralization or Decentralization? What Is Better for Economic Growth?, Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 224, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research; 3 Vazquez, J., McNab, R. (1997). Fiscal Decentralization, Economic Growth, and Democratic Governance, International Studies Program Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper 9707, International Studies Program, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University;


4


entirely the transfer of authority in terms of management decisions from

general government generally to autonomous local authorities and the state

involves on local public affairs only by general regulations. This type of

decentralization is specific to federal states.

Delegation is a top-down process (top to bottom), which implies

that the state gives to local governments executive powers and the right to

adjust the local public resources in accordance with the delegated functions

but with certain and explicit rules that can later be changed or revoked by

the central government. Although we can identify some decisional freedom,

local government actions are controlled by central government, which also

assures a by specific financial mechanism a part of financial resources that

local administrative units need to cover the expenses associated to own

decided or delegated local public tasks. This type of decentralization is

specific to unitary states.

Deconcentration is the least representative form of decentralization.

This kind of system is followed more by centralized forms of government, in

order to increase efficiency and flexibility in the provision of goods and

services by central government through local offices. Characterized as the

early stage of decentralization, the deconcentration of decision-making

power transforms local governments in executants, because they receive

target allocated resources and fully complies to central decisions.

Both delegation and devolution can produce favorable results

through efficient allocation of resources, but the differences are in terms of

interests served. Thus, the delegated systems serve the national interest

meanwhile the devolution prevails local interest in equilibrium with the

national one 4.

However, any of these methods is used, it enables local and regional

economic development, corruption decreasing, social welfare increasing,

local budget balance deficit and democratic governance5

. The

decentralization process, recognized as the act through government is

brought closer to the citizen, strengths local autonomy, allowing local

communities define their own rules of action and to choose own means of

intervention in public affairs, according to their specific needs and financial

4 Bird, R.,Vaillancourt, F. (1997). Fiscal decentralization in developing countries: an overview and perpectives, paper prepared for the International Seminar in Public Economics, Tokyo; 5 Constantinescu, C., Mosteanu, T. (2011). The decentralization of public finance. The context-effect relationship,The economic Review no. 6(59), Sibiu, 2011;


5


power. This way, the local management act is properly, efficiently, timely

and realized in cost-saving conditions6.

Methodology of research

In this paper we analyzed local public revenues and expenditures from 2006

to 2013 timeframe, especially looking for local public decentralized service

funding sources and administrative units’ capacity to face their own decided

and delegated expenditure by own resources or transferred ones from state

budget. We also submitted for discussion the legislation which is regulating

local public finances, highlighting various aspects of the local funding,

respectively of the degree of financial independence and decision-making.

The results of both studies, combined, allowed us to formulate a conclusion

about the financial decentralization in our country.

Research results

Legislative gaps

Romania's transition from centralized to decentralized system had and still

has many obstacles generated by poor regulation. Central public

administration passed the responsibility for numerous local public services

to local public administrations and the transfer of responsibility has been

accompanied by transfers of public money which meant to help local

governments to face new public spending induced. The first Law on Local

public Finance No. 189/1998 represents a fundamental step in terms of

winning local financial autonomy. Subsequently, the Law of Public Finance

no. 273/2006 completed the first rules in the local public domain and

progress was obviously because there have been introduced clear rules for

the distribution of budget balance transfers. Unfortunately, even after the

changes made in 2010, the transfers which finance the delegated public

services still miss distribution regulations. The shares from value added tax

are allocated respecting the annual budget laws to some public services

which are better provided at local level, as child protection, persons with

disabilities’ assistance, various school programs with the objective of

6 Mosteanu,T., Lacatus, C. (2009). Romanian Local Public Finance Decentralization, Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol.12;


6


encouraging healthy eating, public population record institutions,

decentralized cultural institutions, special education and educational

assistance, nurseries, social aid for house heating, school education etc. If

state budget law exactly establishes the amounts of public money allocated

separately to child protection and to assistance to disabled persons, for all

the other cases is specified a general amount of money, covering a sum of

delegated public services. This situation provide to local public

administration the freedom to allocate the respective amounts in discretion

terms between any fields required by law, without certain rules. So, the main

objective is not to allocate efficiently, to the areas which really need funding,

but to spend the transfers on a least one of the fields specified.

Unfortunately, there is a strong heterogeneity between areas set as

destination of these public transfers, so the substitution in financing a

public service to others cannot bring the benefits of the interchangeable

public policies generally do.

The distribution of the amounts deducted from the added value tax

which support delegated public services needs priority to take into account

the subjective situation and specific needs of each community.

Unfortunately, in this regard, the law gives no explanation, so we conclude

that the allocation of transfers is according to criteria more or less

subjective, most likely political. However, imbalances between territorial

administrative units are imminent because of subjectivity in public needs

financial evaluation. We think there is an urgent need to establish by law

methods and criteria for basing the judicious expenditure level for each area

of decentralized public services. Also, there is a need for some reference

levels of local public expenditures related to delegated public services

funded by transfers. Only this way we consider there can be prevented

subjective allocation of public money, which undermines the general

interests of society and public money can be allocated in terms of efficiency.

The example above is not the only one who reveals the non-transparent

allocation of public funds from the central to local level. The Article no.34 of

the Law on Local Public Finance gives to under-governmental units the right

to receive money from the state budget, as subventions, to finance national,

county or local social development programs. Therefore, in the absence of

eligibility criteria, the allocations of public money have no predictability.

The areas covered by these kind of subvention have many directions of

money allocation, neither one is specified in official regulations, there are


7


not set standard returns as to compare the infusion of public money with

the results. In addition, the existence of a financing contract does not

guarantee any priority or opportunity for respective public expenditure, that

meaning is impossible to realize any effective control of financial and

material flows.

Although the shares deducted from income tax rates currently

follow a series of rules (the 82 percent of income tax collected at the county

level are distributed to different level of local public administration

according to their fiscal capacity, area and population), the way they are

distributed induce, if not accentuate, financial imbalances between

communities, because those ones which enjoy a better fiscal capacity receive

he most consistent amounts of money. So richest counties benefit from

higher infusions of public money as to balance their budget (and to expense

for their citizens benefit), which enable the diversification and the growth of

the volume for local public services, including access to new sources of

financing for local investments, which is considered a local development

ramp (the law is not specifying the need to balance current expenses with

current revenues and capital spending with capital revenues, so local

authorities may use current revenues, as transfers are, to sustain investment

expenses, instead to finance consumption). Instead, the poor counties will

remain poor, because the balance transfers are extremely low because of

poor amount of local income tax redistributed. A rethinking of the transfer

system at the regional level, with an expenditure equalization model

depending on proper local needs and public expenditure per capita on each

area of public services which are locally managed, not only on financial

capacity, would have positive effects in terms of citizens' access to goods and

public services they really need. Also, we consider that population and

county surface do not represent proper criteria for transfer distribution. A

poor county with small population and huge surface will receive lower

amounts comparing a reach county, with huge population and small

territory. These criteria only aggravate the discrepancy between the

efficiency in public goods supply between counties with different level of

economic development.

After transfers, local taxes are the most important sources of income

for local budgets. The right of local government to establish autonomously

the local taxes is provided in Article 9 of the European Charter of Local Self-

Government, with the main objective of bridging the volume and quality of


8


goods and services with specific needs and desires of citizens and also with

their financial capacity. In Romania, fiscal autonomy is minimal, local

authorities have only the right to increase local taxes and fees established by

the Tax Code with up to 20% compared to the level calculated according to

the law. Also, they offer a bonus of 10% if payment of taxes is fully made in

advance7. In the context that local authorities have no right to set local fiscal

taxes, it would be welcome an increase of the freedom seeing the right to

increase or decrease the tax amounts by a higher level than 20%. That will

surely have effects as local authorithy responsibility growth and the increase

of financial autonomy.

In addition to fiscal revenues and transfers, local borrowing have a

very important role in terms of financing and gaining financial and

decisional local independence, with long-term effects in terms of economic

development. Under current legislation, local governments are unable to

increase local public debt (loans, interest and commissions related)

proportionally to their needs, and this situation limits their funding

possibilities. Thus, the total annual debt representing rates of the loans

contracted and / or guaranteed, interests and related commissions,

including the loan to be contracted and / or guaranteed year cannot exceed

30% of the total own income8. So, local public administrations cannot

enlarge their investment horizon, even some of them demonstrate sufficient

financial and management capacities9.

The correlation between local public financial autonomy and

financial market funding is positive and interdependent10

, so we suggest

local public borrowing liberty should grow in terms of some conditions, as

the financial capacity of collectivities and the success of local public projects

previously funded by such sources.

7 Law of Fiscal Code, no.571/2003, Official Gazette of Romania no.927/2003, with all amendments and completions; 8 Law of local public finances, no.273/2006, Official Gazette of Romania no.618/2006, with all amendments and completions; 9 Lacatus, C.,Vaduva, F. (2009). The Romanian Municipal Bonds –A Challenge For Local Public Finance And For Investors, Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol.12; 10 Mosteanu, T., Lacatus, C. (2008). The Municipal Bonds – the Cause and the Effect of the Local Financial Decentralisation Growth. Romanian Case, Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol.9;


9


Statistics

Looking to historical data for the period 2006-2010, we concluded that own

local fiscal revenues of local administrative units are completed in a large

volume with transfers, namely shares and amounts deducted from income

tax or amounts deducted from VAT. Overall, these resources are the basis of

local public funding, covering, as shown in chart 1, over 75% of all funding

sources.

Within these tax revenues, local taxes have a small but a rising role

(chart 2). Amid the financial crisis which started in 2008, their level

decreased. We discover the same evolution for the tax revenues and total

public revenue, signaling there were some troubles in collecting local tax

from population and public services funding problems also.

Fiscal capacity of population reflected by the size of local own tax

revenue (property taxes) per capita is slightly increasing, exceeding 200 lei in

2010 (chart 3). But if we refer to all of the taxpayer's tax debt that is the

source of local budget, including shared taxes, we observe strong reduction

after 2008, explained by lower economic activity, lower incomes and the

reduction of consumption.

Figure 1: Share of tax revenue in local government revenues

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Tax revenue shares in total local public revenues

The quota of fiscalrevenues in total localpublic revenues


10


Source: authors' own processing, based on data provided by National

Institute of Statistics, www.insse.ro;

Figure 2: The share of own local taxes in total tax revenues



Figure 3: Tax revenue per capita



0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Own tax revenues share in total local fiscal revenues

the own fiscalrevenues quota intotal local fiscalrevenues

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

20062007200820092010201120122013

own fiscal revenuesper capita

fiscal revenues percapita (includingtransferred ones)

http://www.insse.ro/




11


Figure 4: Share of various local financial resources in total local revenues



Table 1: Share of various categories of local revenues in all local funds (% )

Index / Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Share of amounts/quota deducted from income tax

27.25 30.16 32.64 34.45 32.62 31.79 30.45 30.40

The VAT share 52.47 39.54 42.71 39.63 34.11 29.41 32.87 31.69

Share of subsidies 3.67 12.98 9.96 10.06 12.05 12.54 10.21 11.27

Total share of transfers 79.72 69.70 75.35 74.08 66.73 61.19 63.32 62.09

Share of the amounts received from other levels of public administration

83.39 82.68 85.31 84.14 78.79 73.74 73.53 73.35

Exclusively own revenue ratio

16.61 17.32 14.69 14.24 16.10 18.23 18.78 17.86

Source: authors' own processing, based on data offered by National Institute

of Statistics, www.insse.ro;

As can be observed, tax revenues as amounts deducted from VAT

and amounts/quota deducted from income tax cover over 60% of local

revenues and, together with other category of budgetary transfers, reaches

about 73-83% of local government revenue. As seen in Chart 4 and in Table

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%2

00

6

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

other kind of localrevenues

the shares ofsubventions

the shares of amountsdeducted from VAT




12


1, the percentage of external local funding is declining. Also, we identified a

growth of own tax revenues combined with an increasing interest for

alternative local financial resources, as bond issue or bank credits11. All these

facts suggest an increasing local capacity for self-financing.

Reporting local public government revenue to local public

expenditure we identify the coverage level of local needs by local funds.

Indicators from this category include relevant data about the financial

capacity of the community and its dependence or independence of external

sources of funding, such as grants. In Romania, local revenue are regulated

by law12

and the main elements of classification are: own revenues (taxes,

contributions, amounts and quota deducted from income tax), amounts

deducted from certain income of the state budget, grants/subventions

received from state budget and other budgets. The report between the own

revenue and expenditure is an indicator often used in the literature related

to financial decentralization, namely Hunter index. According to the

statistical data, Romania register a high level of fiscal decentralization, since

over 50% of local government expenditure is financed by own revenues.

Classification of local revenues escapes the fact that income tax and

VAT are both state budget revenues, although they are generated, indeed,

locally and are strongly influenced by the local community and its economic

strength. Even if some of this amounts of money remain and are used at

local level, they still represent transfers from state budget, so it is

questionable to consider them own income.

Funding decentralized public expenditure is based on both kinds of

transferred amounts, specific allocations by budget laws and balancing

amounts. So we consider the classification provided by the Public Finance

Act inappropriate because splits the amounts deducted from VAT from own

incomes, even the law considers the transfers from budget revenues own

sources. So, we propose a more suggestive classification, which to take into

consideration local financial capacity: own regular revenues (local tax, bank

credits, municipal bonds), transferred revenues, including subventions

(grants), exceptional revenues. Under this new structure, the Hunter index

reduces substantially, down below 20% (Chart 5).

11 Constantinescu (Lacatus) C., (2010). ” Municipal bonds and their impact on local development”, PhD. Thesis, 2010; 12 Law of local public finances, no.273/2006, Official Gazette of Romania no.618/2006, with all amendments and completions;


13


Figure 5: Hunter's indicator, calculated from two perspectives



Another aspect of the analysis is the level of public budget balance.

In the context that total public revenues are slightly in excess to public

spending, tax revenues (including transfers) are able to cover more than

90% of current expenditure, which is a signal of sufficient funding (chart 6).

In contrast, own tax revenues manage to cover no more than 15% of current

expenditure (chart 7), which demonstrates the impossibility of the local

government to be financially independent, in the context of a multitude of

decentralized public services to serve, of the limited local funding sources

and limited access to market capital 13

.

13 Constantinescu, C., Tanasescu, P. (2014). Municipal rating-is it necessary? Theoretical and Applied Economics, General Association of the Economists in Romania- AGER, supplement for International Finance and banking Conference FIBA, Bucharest, 2014;



14


Figure 6: Evolution of local tax revenues relative to local current

expenditures



Figure 7: The share of local own fiscal taxes in local public current expenses



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

current expenses

tax revenues

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

20062007200820092010201120122013

The share of own fiscal revenue from current expenses

own local fiscalpublic revenue/ localpublic currentexpenses




15


So, after we conclude that regarding local public funding, territorial

administrative units have extremely limited independence, we may discuss

about the independence which local authority benefits in establishing local

needs, local priorities in delivering public services and allocating own and

transfer sources to different objectives. Functional structure of public

expenditure (Table 2) clearly reveals the areas where the local authority has

specific responsibilities: public services and development, housing,

environment and water, health, education, culture, recreation, religion,

business areas, including also decentralized public services financed by

transfers. Although the territorial administrative units generally enjoy

freedom in choosing their objectives, the restrictions and the lack of

flexibility and freedom of money allocation is coming from the delegated

public services, that do not always implies full funding through grants (such

as education) but should be supported and provided. Also, because of these

responsibility transfers, local authorities are forced to spend some public

money in areas that do not always represent a priority for community,

because decisions of funding are made nationally, not locally. So, even

theoretically communities benefit of freedom of their action and choose,

there is a high volume of public expenditure which has obligatory to be

sustained by local authorities because of the delegated services. In the

context of limited local own tax sources and limited access to financial

market, the financial pressure is too big and collectivities rarely establish

own achievable objectives which to afford to finance. As a result, we cannot

discuss about a real decisional local independence, neither in objectives,

neither in money allocation.

Table 2: Shares of various local public expenditure in total public

expenditure-functional classification of public expenditure (%)

Weight of public spending in a specific functional category in total public expenditure / Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Local government expenditure / total public expenditure 24.47% 20.39% 25.12% 24.44% 24.00%

26.25 % 26.37%

General Public Services 29.91% 24.59% 23.97% 29.61% 25.78% 19.91% 19.71%


16


Defence 0.20% 24.26% 24.22% 19.71% 16.36% 31.00% 36.17%

Public order and national security 3.93% 4.62% 6.36% 6.90% 4.73% 4.33% 4.63%

Economic Affaires 23.18% 27.29% 29.02% 24.60% 26.39% 29.50% 28.43%

Environment 69.92% 73.88% 75.75% 80.97% 60.61% 61.77% 69.65%

Housing and public utilities 60.70% 65.72% 71.65% 75.15% 73.76% 73.56% 84.61%

Health 1.68% 1.70% 1.59% 5.47% 22.37% 37.47% 41.16%

Culture, recreation, religion 66.24% 61.38% 65.83% 68.45% 62.31% 69.68% 70.19%

Education 65.06% 66.15% 57.24% 62.88% 61.34% 57.35% 64.29%

Social protection 13.45% 14.64% 13.35 11.88% 11.00% 10.21% 10.38%

Source: Authors' own processing of the data provided by www.eurostat.org;

Conclusions

Although financial decentralization process started for more than 20 years,

local governments of Romania enjoy a minor financial independence and

decision-making. Central government authorities are still those ones that

draw national and local objectives, the funding and allocation of public

money. Even local responsibilities have increased (as many public services

have been delegated from the central to local level) the freedom of selecting

and measuring local funding sources and the possibility to choose local

objectives and financial ways to achieve them remained limited. In such

restrictive funding conditions stipulated by law, with so many delegates

tasks to solve, local governments are dependent on transfers from the state

budget, which hampers decentralization. In addition, the specific

regulations for this domain have enough gaps that allow discretionary

funding and allocation of public money at local government level. The

absence of clear or justified criteria for public transfers from central level to

local level leads to the waste of public money. So, inefficient local or

national public allocation and public money spending allows rich areas to

grow economically and stops the development of poorer areas. Thus, public

spending is in total disagreement with the real needs of the population.

As a conclusion of our study, Romania has a public finance system

that presents more deconcentration features than decentralization features.

The public financial and decisional decentralization is incipient and is

requiring numerous legislative revisions as to achieve its objective, namely

http://www.eurostat.org/


17


the citizen public need satisfaction in best conditions, regardless of its

financial capacity, in terms of efficiency, priority and opportunity.

References

[1]. Bird, R.,Vaillancourt, F. (1997). Fiscal decentralization in developing

countries: an overview and perpectives, paper prepared for the

International Seminar in Public Economics, Tokyo

[2]. Constantinescu, C., Mosteanu, T. (2011). The decentralization of

public finance. The context-effect relationship, The Economic

Review no. 6(59), Sibiu, 2011;

[3]. Constantinescu, C., Tanasescu, P. (2014). Municipal rating-is it

necessary? Theoretical and Applied Economics, General Association

of the Economists in Romania- AGER, supplement for International

Finance and banking Conference FIBA, Bucharest, 2014;

[4]. Constantinescu (Lacatus) C., (2010). Municipal bonds and their

impact on local development, PhD. Thesis, 2010;

[5]. Lacatus (Constantinescu), C., Vaduva, F. (2009). The Romanian

Municipal Bonds –A Challenge For Local Public Finance And For

Investors, Theoretical and Applied Economics, General Association

of the Economists in Romania- AGER, vol.12;

[6]. Mosteanu,T., Lacatus, C., Postole, M. (2010). A critical overview of

Romania public financal decentralization, Theoretical and Applied

Economics, General Association of the Economists in Romania-

AGER, supplement for International Conference “Financial and

Monetary Stability in Emerging Countries” Bucharest, 2010;

[7]. Mosteanu,T., Lacatus, C. (2009). Romanian Local Public Finance

Decentralization, Theoretical and Applied Economics, General

Association of the Economists in Romania- AGER, vol.12;

[8]. Mosteanu, T., Lacatus, C. (2008). The Municipal Bonds – the Cause

and the Effect of the Local Financial Decentralisation Growth.

Romanian Case, Theoretical and Applied Economics, General

Association of the Economists in Romania- AGER, vol.9;

[9]. Martinez-Vazquez, J., McNab, R. (1997). Fiscal Decentralization,

Economic Growth, and Democratic Governance, International

Studies Program Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper 9707,


18


International Studies Program, Andrew Young School of Policy

Studies, Georgia State University;

[10].Uchimura, H., Jütting, J. P. (2009). Fiscal Decentralization, Chinese

Style: Good for Health Outcomes?,World Development, Elsevier,

vol.37(12);

[11]. Thießen, U. (2000). Fiscal Federalism in Western European and

Selected Other Countries: Centralization or Decentralization? What

Is Better for Economic Growth?, Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin

224, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research;

[12]. Law of local public finances, no. 198/1998, Official Gazette of

Romania, no.404/1998;

[13]. Law of local public finances, no.273/2006, Official Gazette of

Romania no.618/2006, with all amendments and completions;

[14]. Law of state budget for 2006, no.379/2005, Official Gazette of

Romania no.1151/2005;



[16]. Law of state budget for 2008, no.388/2007, Official Gazette

of Romania no.902/2007;


Romania no.121/2009 ;

[18].Law of state budget for 2010, no.11/2010, Official Gazette of Romania

no.60/2010;





[21]. Law of state budget for 2013, no.5/2013, Official Gazette of Romania

no.106/2013;



[23]. Law for ratification of European Treaty of local autonomy,

no.199/1997, Official Gazette of Romania no.331/1997;

[24]. Law of Fiscal Code, no.571/2003, Official Gazette of

Romania no.927/2003, with all amendments and completions;

[25]. Law of decentralization, no.195/2006, Official Gazette of



19


[26]. Government Emergency Ordinance no. 63/2010 amending

and supplementing the Law no.273 / 2006, Official Gazette of


[27]. “The budgets of local authorities in Romania at odds of

failure”, Bucharest, Public Policies Institute,

http://www.ipp.ro/pagini/bugetele-autorit259355ilor-locale-.php;

[28]. www.insse.ro, National Institute for Statistics;

[29]. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.

romania-between decentralization and …...romania-between decentralization and deconcentration 5...

Documents