Hungary is a small country with a very fragmented system of local government. Since 1990 the role of these governments has changed radically as has their level of responsibility. By contrast, the local taxation system still reflects the residue of the previous system. In the context of accession to the European Union, and decentralization initiatives being advocated by international agencies, there is a need to introduce different forms of local taxation. A value-based property tax would serve this purpose. Drawing upon North American experience, we analyze the issues involved in implementing such a system. The local capacity and the legislative parameters to make such a system work are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACIR, 1992Significant Features of Fiscal FederalismAdvisory Committee for Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, DC.
2.
BahlR W, 1998, “Land taxes versus property taxes in developing and transition countries”, inLand Value Taxation: Can It and Will It Work Today Ed. NetzerD, (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA) pp 141–171.
3.
BalasGKovacsR, 1999, “Prospects for the introduction of value-based property tax in Hungary” (Urban Institute and USAID, Washington, DC).
4.
BirdR M, 1993, “Threading the fiscal labyrinth: Some issues in fiscal decentralisation”National Tax Journal46207–227.
BirdR M, 1999b, “Rethinking subnational taxes: A new look at tax assignment”, WP 99 165, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
7.
BirdR M, 2000, “Subnational VATS: Experience and prospects” inNational Tax Association Proceedings 93rd Annual Conference, pp 223–228.
8.
BirdR MSlackE, 2002, “Land and property taxation around the world: A review”Journal of Property Tax Assessment and Administration731–80.
9.
BirdR MTassonyiA T, 2001, “Constraints on provincial and municipal borrowing in Canada: Markets, rules and norms”Canadian Public Administration4484–109.
10.
BirdR MWallichC I, 1992, “Financing local government in Hungary”, WPS 869, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, Washington.
11.
BirdR MWilkieJ S, 2000, “Source vs. residence-based taxation in the European Union: The wrong question?”, inTaxing Capital Income in the European Union Ed. CnossenS, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 78–109.
12.
BirdR MWallichC IPeteriG, 1995, “Financing local government in Hungary”, inDecentralization of the Socialist State Eds BirdR MEbelR DWallichC I, (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC) pp 69–112.
13.
BoadwayR MKitchenH M, 1999Canadian Tax Policy3rd edition, Canadian Tax Foundation, 1200–595 Bay Street, Toronto M5G 2N5.
14.
BowmanJ H, 1998, “Real property tax relief in the District of Columbia”, working paper, District of Columbia Tax Revision Commission.
15.
BretonA, 1996Competitive Governments (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
16.
DaveyKPeteriG, 1998Local Government Finances: Options for ReformLocal Government Know-How Programme, H-2094 Nagykovacsi, Kolozsvar u. 22/a.
17.
DyeR FMcGuireT J, 1997, “The effect of property tax limitation measures on local government fiscal behavior”Journal of Public Economics66469–487.
18.
EbelRVarfalviIVargaS, 1998, “Sorting out intergovernmental roles and responsibilities in the Hungarian transition”, inPublic Finance Reform during the Transition Eds BokrosLDethierJ-J, (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC) pp 424–446.
19.
European Commission, 2000Tax Policy in the European Union (Office for Official Publications of the European Union, Luxembourg).
20.
European Commission, 2001, ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee—tax policy in the European Union—priorities for the years ahead”, Brussels, COM (2001) 260 final.
21.
FeketeELadosMPfeilESzoboszlaiZ, 2002, “Size of local government, local democracy and local service delivery in Hungary”, inConsolidation or Fragmentation? The Size of Local Governments in Central and Eastern Europe Ed. SwianiewiczP, Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institute, Budapest, pp 31–100.
22.
FischelW A, 1998, “School finance litigation and property tax revolts: How undermining local control turns voters away from public education”, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
23.
FischelW A, 2001, “Municipal corporations, homeowners and the benefit view of the property tax”, inProperty Taxation and Local Government and Finance Ed. OatesW S, (Lincoln Institute, Cambridge, MA) pp 33–78.
24.
GarzonH, 1998, “Local revenues and policy implications”, paper presented to the The Six-City Seminar, Budapest, Hungary, March 1999; copy available from The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
25.
HogyeM, (Ed.), 2000Local and Regional Tax Administration in Transition Countries (Open Society Institute, Budapest).
26.
IAAO, 1997, “Standard on property tax policy”, International Association of Assessing Officers; http://www.iaao.org.
27.
InmanR P, 1999, “Review of Wallace Oates (Ed.), 1998 The Economics of Fiscal Federalism and Local Finance”National Tax Journal52(4) 843–857.
28.
Kaposvár, 1998, “Kaposvár Megyei Jogu Varos Jegyzojenek Tajekoztatoja a helyi adoztatas tapasztalatairol” [Information on the experience of local taxation from the Notary of Kaposvár to the local government]; copy available from the authors.
29.
KitchenH M, 2000, “Municipal finance in a new fiscal environment”, Commentary 147, C D Howe Institute, Toronto.
30.
KitchenH M, 2002, “Municipal revenue and expenditure issues in Canada”, Canadian Tax Foundation, 1200–595 Bay Street, Toronto M5G 2N5.
31.
KopanyiMEl DaherSWetzelDNoelMPappA, 2000, “Hungary modernizing the subnational government system”, DP N.417, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC.
32.
LichfieldNConellanO, 2000, “Land value taxation for the benefit of the community: A review of the current situation in the European Union”, WP 1, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
33.
LockeWTassonyiA, 1996, “Local tax base endogeneity and tax competition: A consideration of the Greater Toronto Area”, prepared for the Canadian Economics Association 1996 Annual Meeting; copy available from the authors.
34.
LocsmandiGPeteriGVarga-OtvosB, 2000Urban Planning and Capital Investment Financing in HungaryLocal Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institute, Budapest, Hungary).
35.
MalmeJ HYoungmanJ M, (Eds), 2001The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC).
36.
NechybaT J, 2001, “The benefit view and the new view: Where do we stand, twenty-five years into the debate?”, inProperty Taxation and Local Government and Finance Ed. OatesW E, (Lincoln Institute, Cambridge, MA) pp 113–122.
37.
OatesW E, 2001a, “Fiscal competition or harmonization? Some reflections”National Tax Journal54(3) 507–512.
38.
OatesW E, 2001b, “Property taxation and local government finance: An overview and some reflections”, inProperty Taxation and Local Government and Finance Ed. OatesW E, (Lincoln Institute, Cambridge, MA) pp 21–32.
ShadbegianR J, 1999, “The effect of tax and expenditure limitation on the revenue structure of local government, 1962–87”National Tax Journal52(2) 221–237.
47.
SheffrinS M, 1999a, “The future of the property tax: A political economy perspective”State Tax Notes 12 April, 1225–1231.
48.
SheffrinS M, 1999b, “‘Worst tax’, local options and proposition 13”State Tax Notes 27 December, 1721–1723.
49.
SjoquistD LPandeyL, 2001, “An analysis of acquisition value property tax assessment for homesteaded property”Public Budgeting and Finance21(4) 1–17.
50.
SjoquistD LWalkerM B, 1999, “Economies of scale in property tax assessment”National Tax Journal52(2) 207–220.
51.
SlackE, 2000, “Understanding the evolution of property tax policy”, paper presented for 2001-A Property Tax Odyssey, 34th Annual National Workshop Canadian Property Tax Association Inc. Ottawa; copy available from Enid Slack Consulting, 34 King Street E, Suite 640, Toronto, M5G 2X8.
52.
SlackE, 2002, “Property tax reform in Ontario: What have we learned?”Canadian Tax Journal50(2) 576–585.
53.
SmithEWebbT J, 2001, “Tax competition, income differentials and public services”International Tax and Public Finance8(5/6) 675–692.
54.
SokolowA D, 1998, “The changing property tax and state-local relations”Publius: The Journal of Federalism28(1) 165–187.
55.
SokolowA D, 2000, “The changing property tax in the West: State centralization of local finances”Public Budgeting and Finance20(1) 85–104.
SwianiewiczP, (Ed.), 2002Consolidation or Fragmentation? The Size of Local Governments in Central and Eastern EuropeLocal Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institute Nádor utca 11, H-1051 Budapest.
58.
SzegvariP, 2002, “Methods and techniques of managing decentralization reforms in Hungary”, in Mastering Decentralization and Public Administration Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe Ed. PeteriG, (Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institute, Budapest, Hungary, pp 137–162.
59.
The Economist2002a, “Viktor Orban, an assertive Hungarian”, 2 March, page 52.
60.
The Economist2002b, “Finance in Eastern Europe”, 14 September, page 50.
61.
The Economist2003, “House party”, 21 August, page 58.
62.
ThirskW R, 1982, “Political sensitivity versus economic sensibility: A tale of two property taxes”, inTax Policy Options in the 1980's Canadian Tax Paper 66, Eds ThirskW RWhalleyJ, (Canadian Tax Foundation, Toronto) pp 384–401.
63.
TothI J, 2002, “The importance of the hidden economy in Hungary in 1995–96”, working paper, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest.
64.
WilsonJ D, 1999, “Theories of tax competition”National Tax Journal52(2) 269–304.
65.
World Bank, 2002, “Hungary's twisted land market”Transition March-April, number 10.
66.
ZodrowG R, 2001, “Reflections on the new view and the benefit view of the property tax”, inProperty Taxation and Local Government and Finance Ed. OatesW E, (Lincoln Institute, Cambridge, MA) pp 79–112.
