Discussing the determinants of online budget transparency based on a spatial regression analysis of Croatian cities and municipalities: Do good neighbours make you better?
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2020
Discussing the determinants of online budget transparency based on a spatial regression analysis of Croatian cities and municipalities: Do good neighbours make you better?
Taxpayers want to pay as little in taxes as possible to fund an adequate level of public goods and services in their local government, and so they need to keep their local incumbents accountable. Online local budget transparency (OLBT) facilitates this accountability, as it enables citizens to find information online about their local budgets that is timely, accurate, comprehensive and understandable. The aim of this article is to identify the most important determinants of OLBT for all 556 Croatian cities and municipalities from 2014 to 2017. Using a dynamic spatial lag Durbin model, the analysis explores the direct and indirect effects of potential determinants on OLBT. The main contribution is the pioneering use of a dynamic spatial lag Durbin model for researching local budget transparency determinants in a Central and Eastern European democracy. The results show that neighbours have an influence on OLBT but that direct effects dominate; that is, the major OLBT determinants come from within each city/municipality. Particularly important determinants are residents’ income, the local government’s wealth, the number of public employees in the city/municipality and the population size.
Alcaide-MuñozLBolívarMPR (2015) Determining factors of transparency and accountability in local governments: a meta-analytic study. Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-Government13(2): 129–160.
3.
Alcaide-MuñozLBolívarMPRHernándezAML (2017) Transparency in governments: A meta-analytic review of incentives for digital versus hard-copy public financial disclosures. The American Review of Public Administration47(5): 550–573.
4.
AltJELassenDDRoseS (2006) The causes of fiscal transparency: Evidence from the US states. IMF Staff Papers53: 30–57.
5.
AndrewsM (2009) Isomorphism and the limits to African public financial management reform. HKS Working Paper No. RWP09-012. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
6.
AshworthRBoyneGDelbridgeR (2009) Escape from the iron cage? Organizational change and isomorphic pressures in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19(1): 165–187.
7.
BernickELBirdsJMBrekkenK, et al. (2014) Explaining county government fiscal transparency in an age of e-government. State and Local Government Review46(3): 173–183.
8.
BerryCRHowellWG (2007) Accountability and local elections: rethinking retrospective voting. The Journal of Politics69(3): 844–858.
9.
BinderMChildersMHopkinsA, et al. (2016) In voters’ minds, are all politics really local? Comparing voters’ knowledge of national and local politics. In: conference proceedings of the state politics and policy, Dallas, Texas, Presented at the State Politics and Policy Conference, May 19–21, 2016, Dallas, Texas, 1–35. Available at: https://www.utdallas.edu/sppc/pdf/Binder%20Childers%20Hopkins%20and%20Hampsey.pdf (accessed 20 June 2018).
10.
BorckRFossenFMFreierR, et al. (2015) Race to the debt trap? — Spatial econometric evidence on debt in German municipalities. Regional Science and Urban Economics53: 20–37.
11.
Budget Act (2015) Zakon o proračunu pročišćeni tekst zakona NN 87/08, 136/12, 15/15 na snazi od 14.02.2015. Available at: https://www.zakon.hr/z/283/Zakon-o-prora%C4%8Dunu (accessed 11 June 2018).
12.
Caamaño-AlegreJLago-PeñasSReyes-SantiasF, et al. (2013) Budget transparency in local governments: an empirical analysis. Local Government Studies39(2): 182–207.
13.
CairnsAC (1977) The governments and societies of Canadian federalism. Canadian Journal of Political Science10(4): 695.
14.
CaldeiraE (2012) Yardstick competition in a federation: theory and evidence from China. China Economic Review23(4): 878–897.
15.
ChristiaensJ (1999) Financial accounting reform in Flemish municipalities: an empirical investigation. Financial Accountability and Management15(1): 21–40.
16.
Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2017) Census 2011. MS Excel Tables. Zagreb: Croatian Bureau of Statistics.
17.
Croatian Regulatory Authority for Network Industries (2018) Access to the Internet 2014-2017. Zagreb: Croatian Regulatory Authority for Network Industries (HAKOM).
18.
Cuadrado-BallesterosBMartinez-FerreroJFrias-AceitunoJ-V, et al. (2017) The role of media pressure in promoting transparency of local governments. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences13(51): 20–37.
19.
de AraujoJFFETejedo-RomeroF (2016) Local government transparency index: Determinants of municipalities’ rankings. International Journal of Public Sector Management29(4): 327–347.
20.
de AraujoJFFETejedo-RomeroF (2018) Does gender equality affect municipal transparency: The case of Spain. Public Performance & Management Review41(1): 69–99.
21.
DeeganC (2002) Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal15(3): 282–311.
22.
Del SolDA (2013) The institutional, economic and social determinants of local government transparency. Journal of Economic Policy Reform16(1): 90–107.
23.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160.
Esteller-MoréAOteroJP (2012) Fiscal transparency: (Why) does your local government respond?Public Management Review14(8): 1153–1173.
26.
EvansJHPattonJM (1987) Signaling and monitoring in public-sector accounting. Journal of Accounting Research25: 130–158.
27.
FerejohnJ (1986) Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice50(1-3): 5–25.
28.
Gallego-ÁlvarezIRodríguez-DomínguezLGarcía-SánchezI-M (2010) Are determining factors of municipal E-government common to a worldwide municipal view? An intra-country comparison. Government Information Quarterly27(4): 423–430.
GandíaJLArchidonaMC (2008) Determinants of web site information by Spanish city councils. Online Information Review32(1): 35–57.
31.
García-TabuyoMSáez-MartínACaba-PérezMDC (2016) Mandatory versus voluntary disclosures: drivers of proactive information provision by local governments in Central America. Information Development32(4): 1199–1215.
32.
GesueleBMetalloC (2017) Factors influencing mandatory and voluntary e-disclosure diffusion by municipalities. In: CorsiKCastellanoNGLambogliaR, et al. (eds) Reshaping Accounting and Management Control Systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 263–276.
33.
GesueleBMetalloCLongobardiS (2018) The determinants of E-disclosure attitude: empirical evidences from Italian and Spanish municipalities. International Journal of Public Administration41(11): 921–934.
34.
GeysB (2006) Looking across borders: A test of spatial policy interdependence using local government efficiency ratings. Journal of Urban Economics60(3): 443–462.
35.
GeysBOsterlohS (2013) Borders as boundaries to fiscal policy interactions? An empirical analysis of politicians’ opinions on rivals in the competition for firms. Journal of Regional Science53(4): 583–606.
36.
GirouxGMcLellandAJ (2003) Governance structures and accounting at large municipalities. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(3): 203–230.
37.
GrewalBMathewsR (1977) Intergovernmental competition and co-ordination. In: MathewsR (ed.) State and Local Taxation. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 83–93.
38.
GuillamónM-DBastidaFBenitoB (2011) The determinants of local government’s financial transparency. Local Government Studies37(4): 391–406.
39.
HoAT-K (2002) Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review62(4): 434–444.
40.
JornaF (2015) Openness and urban governance: How transparency erodes local government. International Public Administration Review13(3-4): 161–183.
41.
KopitsGCraigJ (1998) Transparency in Government Operations. IMF Occasional Papers No. 158. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
42.
LaswadFFisherROyelereP (2005) Determinants of voluntary internet financial reporting by local government authorities. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy24(2): 101–121.
43.
LeeL-FYuJ (2016) Identification of spatial Durbin panel models. Journal of Applied Econometrics31(1): 133–162.
44.
LeSageJPPaceKR (2009) An introduction to spatial econometrics. Revue D’économie Industrielle123: 19–44.
45.
LowatcharinGMenifieldCE (2015) Determinants of internet-enabled transparency at the local level: a study of midwestern county web sites. State and Local Government Review47(2): 102–115.
Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds (2017) Average Residents Income per Capita 2012-2016. Zagreb: Ministry of Regional Development and European Union Funds.
50.
MouraoPR (2017) Discussing the spatial dependence and the determinants of the municipal expenses of Portuguese forest sappers’ teams. Journal of Forest Economics27: 38–49.
51.
NealeMABazermanMH (1992) Negotiating rationally: The power and impact of the negotiator’s frame. Academy of Management Perspectives6(3): 42–51.
52.
NejašmićI (2014) Kamo ide Hrvatska? Buduće demografske promjene i neke njihove posljedice. In: AkrapAČipinIStrmotaM (eds) Zbornik Radova Znanstvenog Skupa Demografija u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Ekonomski fakultet, 111–123.
53.
OECD (2002) OECD best practices for budget transparency. OECD Journal on Budgeting1(3): 7–14.
54.
OttKBronicMPetrusicM (2013) Budget transparency of Croatian counties, cities and municipalities. Newsletter - an Occasional Publication of the Institute of Public Finance14: 1–9.
55.
OttKBronicMPetrusicM (2014) Budget transparency of Croatian counties, cities and municipalities. Newsletter - an Occasional Publication of the Institute of Public Finance15(81): 1–9.
56.
OttKBronicMPetrusicM (2015) Budget transparency in Croatian counties, cities and municipalities (November 2014 – March 2015). Newsletter - an Occasional Publication of the Institute of Public Finance16(97): 1–13.
57.
OttKBronicMPetrušićM, et al. (2016) Budget transparency in Croatian counties, cities and municipalities (November 2015 – March 2016). Newsletter - an Occasional Publication of the Institute of Public Finance17(107): 1–14.
58.
OttKBronicMPetrušićM, et al. (2017) Budget transparency in Croatian counties, cities and municipalities (November 2016 – March 2017). Newsletter - an Occasional Publication of the Institute of Public Finance18(112): 1–13.
59.
OttKBronicMPetrušićM, et al. (2018) Budget transparency in Croatian counties, cities and municipalities (November 2017 - March 2018). Newsletter - an Occasional Publication of the Institute of Public Finance19(115): 1–14.
60.
OttKMačkićVBronićM (2018) Budget transparency of local governments: The political economy of city and municipality budgets in Croatia. Društvena Istraživanja27(4): 629–647. https://doi.org/10.5559/di.27.4.03
61.
PattenDM (1992) Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society17(5): 471–475.
62.
PérezCCBolívarMPRHernándezAML (2008) e-Government process and incentives for online public financial information. Online Information Review32(3): 379–400.
63.
PinaVTorresLRoyoS (2010) Is e-government leading to more accountable and transparent local governments? An overall view. Financial Accountability & Management26(1): 3–20.
64.
PiotrowskiSJvan RyzinGG (2007) Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. The American Review of Public Administration37(3): 306–323.
65.
RíosA-MBenitoBBastidaF (2013) Determinants of central government budget disclosure: An international comparative analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice15(3): 235–254.
66.
SalmonP (1987) Decentralisation as an incentive scheme. Oxford Review of Economic Policy3(2): 24–43.
67.
ScavoCShiY (2000) Public administration: The role of information technology in the reinventing government paradigm: Normative predicates and practical challenges. Social Science Computer Review18(2): 166–178.
68.
ScottABlossG (1988) Inter-provincial competition. In: BrennanGGrewalBSGroenewegenPD (eds) Taxation and Fiscal Federalism: Essays in Honour of Russell Mathews. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 397–413.
69.
SeneviratneSJ (1999) Information technology and organizational change in the public sector. In: GarsonGD (ed.) Information Technology and Computer Applications in Public Administration. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 41–61.
70.
Serrano-CincaCRueda-TomásMPortillo-TarragonaP (2009) Factors influencing E-disclosure in local public administrations. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27(2): 355–378.
71.
ShawEF (1979) Agenda-setting and mass communication theory. International Communication Gazette25(2): 96–105.
72.
State Electoral Commission (2013) Izbori 2013: Konačni Službeni Rezultati za Lokalne Izbore. Zagreb: State Election Commission.
StylesAKTennysonM (2007) The accessibility of financial reporting of U.S. municipalities on the internet. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management19(1): 56–92.
75.
TavaresAFDa CruzNF (2017) Explaining the transparency of local government websites through a political market framework. Government Information Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 2017. Available online 24 August 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2017.1008.1005.
76.
ThomasJC (2010) When should the public be involved in public management? Design principles with case applications. In: O’LearyRVan SlykeDKimS (eds) The Future of Public Administration around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 167–177.
77.
VishwanathTKaufmannD (1999) Towards Transparency in Finance and Governance. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
78.
Wertheimer-BaletićA (2017) Demografska Teorija, Razvoj Stanovništva Hrvatske i Populacijska Politika (Izbor Radova). Samobor: Izdavačka kuća Meridijani.
