This article adopts the perspective of second-generation fiscal-federalism theory to provide an empirical assessment of Canada’s intergovernmental fiscal arrangements. In the context of the literature on the political economy of intergovernmental grant programs, it examines the influence of political considerations on the evolution of the Canadian fiscal arrangements under the Constitution Act of 1982. Fixed-effect regression results exploiting data from the 1982 to 2012 period show a statistically significant relationship between changes in both federal and provincial electoral variables and changes in a province’s total federal transfer revenues. Changes to social transfers appear to be more reactive to changes in the political environment than do changes in equalization transfers.
AhmadEhtishamGarcia-EscribanoMercedesAntonio Gonzalez AnayaJoséRevillaErnestoBrosioGiorgioLockwoodBen. 2007. “Why Focus on Spending Needs Factors? The Political Economy of Fiscal Transfer Reforms in Mexico.” IMF Working Papers, no. 07/252, The International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
2.
BakerMichaelAbigail PayneA.SmartMichael. 1999. “An Empirical Study of Matching Grants: The ‘Cap on CAP.’” Journal of Public Economics72:269–88.
3.
BardhanPranabMookherjeeDilip. 2000. “Capture and Governance at Local and National Levels.” American Economic Review (AEA Papers & Proceedings)90:135–39.
4.
BednarJenna. 2009. The Robust Federation: Principles of Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BesleyTimothy. 2006. Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
BesleyTimothyCoateStephen. 2003. “Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Approach.” Journal of Public Economics87:2611–37.
7.
BorckRainaldOwingsStephanie. 2003. “The Political Economy of Intergovernmental Grants.” Regional Science and Urban Economics33:139–56.
8.
BretonAlbert. 1996. Competitive Governments: An Economic Theory of Politics and Public Finance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BrolloFernandaNanniciniTommaso. 2012. “Tying Your Enemy’s Hands in Close Races: The Politics of Federal Transfers in Brazil.” American Political Science Review106:742–61.
10.
BruecknerJan K.2009. “Partial Fiscal Decentralization.” Regional Science and Urban Economics39:23–32.
11.
CaseAnne. 2001. “Election Goals and Income Redistribution: Recent Evidence from Albania.” European Economic Review45:405–23.
12.
Commission on Fiscal Imbalance. 2002. A New Division of Canada’s Financial Resources (Final Report). Montreal: Government of Quebec.
13.
DahlbergM.JohanssonE.. 2002. “On the Vote-purchasing Behavior of Incumbent Governments.” American Political Science Review96:27–40.
14.
DevarajanShantayananKhemaniStutiShahShekhar. 2009. “The Politics of Partial Decentralization.” In Does Decentralization Enhance Service Delivery and Poverty Reduction? edited by AhmadEhtishamBrosioGiorgio, pp. 102–21. Cheltenham, MA: Edward Elgar.
15.
DixitAvinashLondreganJohn. 1998. “Fiscal Federalism and Redistributive Politics.” Journal of Public Economics68:153–80.
16.
EsselmentAnna Lennox. 2010. “Fighting Elections: Cross-level Political Party Integration in Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Political Science43:871–92.
17.
EsselmentAnna Lennox. 2013. “A Little Help from My Friends: The Partisan Factor and Intergovernmental Negotiations in Canada.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism43:701–27.
18.
GrossmanPhilip J.1994. “A Political Theory of Intergovernmental Grants.” Public Choice78:295–303.
19.
HindricksJeanLockwoodBen. 2009. “Decentralization and Electoral Accountability: Incentives, Separation and Voter Welfare.” European Journal of Political Economy25:385–97.
20.
HooverGary A.PecorinoPaul. 2005. “The Political Determinants of Federal Expenditure at the State Level.” Public Choice123:95–113.
21.
JamettiMarioJoanisMarcelin. 2009. “The Rise of Partial Decentralization and Shared Responsibility Federalism.” In World Report on Fiscal Federalism 09, edited by BoschNúriaSoléAlbert, pp. 78–88. Barcelona, Spain: Institut d’Economia de Barcelona.
22.
JamettiMarioJoanisMarcelin. 2016. “Electoral Competition as a Determinant of Fiscal Decentralization.” Fiscal Studies37:285–300.
23.
JamettiMarioJoanisMarcelin. 2014. “Elections and De Facto Expenditure Decentralization in Canada.” CESifo Working Paper, no. 4791, CESifo Group, Munich, Germany.
24.
JoanisMarcelin. 2014. “Shared Accountability and Partial Decentralization in Local Public Good Provision.” Journal of Development Economics107:28–37.
25.
JohanssonEva. 2003. “Intergovernmental Grants as a Tactical Instrument: Empirical Evidence from Swedish Municipalities.” Journal of Public Economics87:883–915.
26.
KhemaniStuti. 2007. “Does Delegation of Fiscal Policy to an Independent Agency Make a Difference? Evidence from Intergovernmental Transfers in India.” Journal of Development Economics82:464–84.
27.
KotsogiannisChristosSchwagerRobert. 2008. “Accountability and Fiscal Equalization.” Journal of Public Economics92:2336–49.
28.
LarcineseValentinoRizzoLeonzioTestaCecilia. 2006. “The Allocation of US Federal Budget to the States: The Impact of the President.” Journal of Politics68:447–56.
29.
LecoursAndréBélandDaniel. 2010. “Federalism and Fiscal Policy: The Politics of Equalization in Canada.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism40:569–96.
30.
LockwoodBen. 2002. “Distributive Politics and the Costs of Centralization.” Review of Economic Studies69:313–37.
31.
MilliganK.SmartM.. 2005. “Regional Grants as Pork Barrel Politics.” CESifo Working Paper, no. 1453, CESifo Group, Munich, Germany.
32.
OatesWallace E.1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace.
33.
OatesWallace E.2005. “Toward a Second-generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism.” International Tax and Public Finance12:349–73.
34.
Rioux OuimetHubert. 2014. “Quebec and Canadian Fiscal Federalism: From Tremblay to Séguin and Beyond.” Canadian Journal of Political Science47:47–69.
35.
SalmonPierre. 1987. “Decentralisation as an Incentive Scheme.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy3:24–43.
36.
SeabrightPaul. 1996. “Accountability and Decentralisation in Government: An Incomplete Contracts Model.” European Economic Review40:61–89.
37.
Solé-OlléAlbertSorribas-NavarroPilar. 2008. “The Effects of Partisan Alignment on the Allocation of Intergovernmental Transfers: Differences-in-differences Estimates for Spain.” Journal of Public Economics92:2302–19.
38.
TreffKarinPerryDavid B.. 1993. The National Finances 1993. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Tax Foundation.
39.
WeingastBarry R.2009. “Second Generation Fiscal Federalism: The Implications of Fiscal Incentives.” Journal of Urban Economics65:279–93.
40.
WildasinDavid E.2004. “The Institutions of Federalism: Toward an Analytical Framework.” National Tax Journal57:247–72.
41.
WilsonJohn D.JanebaEckhard. 2005. “Decentralization and International Tax Competition.” Journal of Public Economics89:1211–29.
42.
WrightGavin. 1974. “The Political Economy of New Deal Spending: An Econometric Analysis.” The Review of Economics and Statistics56:30–38.
43.
YoungRobertSharmanCampbell, with AndrewGoldstein. 1996. “The Partisan Component in Intergovernmental Transfers.” In Reforming Fiscal Federalism for Global Competition: A Canada-Australia Comparison, edited by BootheP. M., pp. 163–83. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
