The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it measures the efficiency in the provision of public goods by local jurisdictions applying data envelopment analysis (DEA). Second, it relates efficiency scores to a fiscal equalization scheme designed to mitigate the negative consequences of Tiebout competition. The data come from the twenty-six cantons of Switzerland (2000–2004), a country characterized by marked federalism. Results show the equalization scheme to indeed have a negative influence on performance, resulting in an efficiency–equity trade-off. However, substitution of earmarked payments by lump-sum payments as part of the 2008 reform is likely to enhance cantonal performance.
AfonsoAntonioFernandesSónia P. (2006). “Measuring Local Government Spending Efficiency: Evidence for the Lisbon Region.”Regional Studies, 40, 39–53.
2.
AfonsoAntonioScaglioniCarla.2005. “Public Services Efficiency Provision in Italian Regions: A Non-Parametric Analysis.”ISEG working papers 02, Technical University of Lisbon.
3.
AfonsoAntonioSchuknechtLudgerTanziVito.2006. “Public Sector Efficiency: Evidence for new EU Member States and Emerging Markets.”ISEG working papers 01, Technical University of Lisbon.
4.
AndersenPerPetersenNiels C. (1993). “A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis.”Management Science, 39, 1261–4.
5.
BarankayIwanLockwoodBen. (2007). “Decentralization and the Productive Efficiency of Government: Evidence from Swiss Cantons.”Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1197–218.
6.
CoelliTimothy J.RaoD. S. PrasadaO’DonnelChristopher J.BatteseGeorge E. (2005). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
7.
De BorgerBrunoKerstensKristiaan. (1996). “Cost Efficiency of Belgian Local Governments: A Comparative Analysis of FDH, DEA, and Econometric Approaches.”Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26, 145–70.
8.
DrakeLeighSimperRichard. (2003). “The Measurement of English and Welsh Police Force Efficiency: A Comparison of Distance Function Models.”European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 165–86.
9.
FarrellM. (1957). “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency.”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120, 253–81.
10.
FeldLars P.MatsusakaJohn G. (2003). “Budget Referendums and Government Spending: Evidence from Swiss Cantons.”Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2703–24.
11.
FischerRoland.2004. “Die Unterschiede in Der Steuerbelastung Der Kantone: Eine Analyse Auf Der Basis Eines Mikroökonomischen Haushaltsmodells [Differences in cantonal tax burden: An analysis based on a macroeconomic budgeting model].”Fiscal Authority Department of Switzerland Working Papers 06, Switzerland.
12.
FischerRolandTobiasBeljeanFivazJan. (2003). “Mehr Chancengleichheit und Eigenverantwortung: Der neue Schweizer Finanzausgleich zwischen Bund und Kantonen [More Equity and Cantonal Authority: The New Swiss Financial Equalization Program].”Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 72, 407–22.
13.
FreyR. LDafflonBJeanrenaudCMeierA.1994. “Der Finanzausgleich zwischen Bund und Kantonen [Financial equalization between the federal state and the cantons].”Fiscal Authority Department, Switzerland.
14.
GrossmanPhilip J.MavrosPanayiotisWassmerRobert W. (1999). “Public Sector Technical Inefficiency in Large U.S. Cities.”Journal of Urban Economics, 46, 278–99.
15.
KoopmansTjalling C. (1951). “An Analysis of Production as an Efficient Combination of Activities.” In KoopmansTjalling C. (Ed.), Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation (pp. 33–97). New York: John Wiley.
16.
OlsonMancur. (1969). “The Principle of Fiscal Equivalence: The Division of Responsibilities Among Different Levels of Government.”The American Economic Review, 59, 479–87.
17.
PommerehneWernerZweifelPeter. (1991). “Success of a Tax Amnesty: At the Polls, for the FISC?”Public Choice, 72, 131–65.
18.
SeifordLawrenceZhuJoe. (2002). “Modeling Undesirable Factors in Efficiency Evaluation.”European Journal of Operational Research, 142, 16–20.
19.
ShephardRonald W. (1970). Theory of Cost and Production Functions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
SmithBrian C. (1985). Decentralization: The Territorial Dimension of State. London: Allen and Unwin.
21.
StiglitzJoseph E. (1988). Economics of the Public Sector. New York, NY: Norton.
22.
StutzerAlois.1999. “A Democracy Index for the Swiss Cantons.”Institute for Empirical Research in Economics Working Papers 23, University of Zurich.
23.
ThanassoulisEmmanuel. (1999). “Setting Achievement Targets for School Children.”Education Economics, 7, 101–19.
24.
ThönyBernhard.2005. Der Finanzausgleich im Wettbewerbsföderalismus – Eine Theorie des Finanzausgleichs und eine Analyse der innerkantonalen Finanzausgleichssysteme in der Schweiz [Financial equalization in federalism—A theory of the equalization program and an analysis of the inner cantonal financial equalization systems of Switzerland]. Bamberg, Germany: Difo-Druck Gmbh.
25.
TieboutCharles M. (1956). “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.”Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–24.
26.
Vanden EeckautPhilippeTulkensHenryJamarMarie-Astrid. (1993). “Cost Efficiency in Belgian Municipalities.” In FriedHarold O.LovellC. A. KnoxSchmidtShelton S. (Eds.), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications (pp. 300–34). New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
WorthingtonAndrew. (2001). “An Empirical Survey of Frontier Efficiency Measurement Techniques in Education.”Education Economics, 9, 245–68.
28.
WorthingtonAndrewDolleryBrian E. (2001). “Measuring Efficiency in Local Government: An Analysis of New South Wales Municipalities’ Domestic Waste Management Function.”Policy Studies Journal, 29, 232–50.
