Kutipan Penting Nggak Penting.docx

Kutipan penting nggak penting

Zhenfa dan Wei (2016), meta regresi

 fiscal decentralization reform is considered as one of the most important contributors to China’s economic growth. In a country like China where economic growth is spearheaded by the government, fiscal decentralization endows local governments with potent incentives to spur economic growth.  conclusions in existing literature based on empirical studies are inconsistent and controversial. Meanwhile, different empirical studies could be related to their study characteristics such as the selection indicator, sample size, time span, regional scope and econometric method, etc., which bring significant heterogeneity to studies on the same subject.  Thus, some scholars began to be concerned with the negative effect of fiscal decentralization reform, including: (1) it may give rise to uneven inter-jurisdictional development and local protectionism (Young, 2000; Zhou Li’an, 200411), causing income gaps between urban and rural areas and regions to widen (Wang Yongqin et al., 2007)12; (2) growing spending on economic construction reduced local government supply of general public goods  In conducting the empirical study on fiscal decentralization and economic growth, the first question to be resolved is the selection of fiscal decentralization indicators  the indicator of fiscal income decentralization, which is depicted by the share of fiscal revenue for lower-tier government; second, the indicator of fiscal spending decentralization, which is depicted by the share of fiscal spending for lower-tier government; third, the retention ratio of local government revenues is used to measure the  Aside from fiscal decentralization indicator, another important indicator is the dependent variable of economic growth. Existing literature mainly has two economic growth indicators: first, nominal GDP growth rate and real GDP growth rate. Considering that nominal GDP growth rate does not exclude price factor, the economic growth rate it measures contains the risk of inaccuracy. Hence, most literature adopts real GDP growth rate (as can be discovered in Table 2, 38 empirical models adopt real GDP growth rate, while only 16 about nominal GDP growth rate).  Most models adopt the indicator of fiscal spending decentralization. Twenty-five models adopt the indicator of fiscal revenue decentralization, 49 adopt the indicator

of fiscal spending decentralization, while only five adopt fiscal sharing ratio. This indicates that fiscal spending decentralization indicator is recognized by most scholars as an indicator for the measurement of China’s degree of fiscal decentralization.  Half of current empirical results support the proposition that China’s fiscal decentralization spurred economic growth. Out of 54 model results, 27 indicate positive effect, 16 indicate negative effect and 11 indicate insignificant effect. By time segments, the results differ greatly.  Judging by intertemporal effect (including the timespan before and after 1994), i.e. the long-term effect of fiscal decentralization and economic growth, the positive effect is dominant. Out of 14 model results, 10 indicate positive effect, one indicates negative effect and three indicate insignificant effect. Two papers (Feltenstein and Iwata, 2005; Zhou Wenxing, Zhang Zheng, 200617) warrant special attention. They respectively tested the long-term effect between 1952 and 1996 and between 1953 and 2002, and the results indicate positive effect, which to some extent support the argument that “fiscal decentralization promotes long-term economic growth.”

T. Zhang & H. Zhou (2001)

This paper unifies and extends the growth impact of public expenditure among multisector with multivel levels of government

Akai dan Sakata 2002

 First, Zhang and Zou [7], using panel data for China covering the period following the reforms of the late 1970s, find that fiscal decentralization reduces provincial economic growth.  Second, Davoodi and Zou [2], using panel data for 46 developing and developed countries covering the 1970– 1989 period, find a negative relationship between fiscal decentralization and economic growth for developing countries, but no relationship for developed countries. Finally, Xie et al. [6], using time-series data for the United States covering the 1948–1994 period, show that further fiscal decentralization may be detrimental to growth.      