THE EVALUATION OF INDICES OF PUBLIC FINANCE DISTRIBUTION ON CENTRAL AND LOCAL LEVELS FOR EU COUNTRIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays the problems of optimal taxation and tax distribution are closely connected with growth of decentralization and democracy in the world, especially in EU and other countries, such as USA, Canada, etc. Many economists and analysts studied the problems of co-operation between central and local administration in the realization of the state programmes and efficiency of public services on different levels (central, regional or local). Due to the theoretical and empirical evidence it was clear that some functions of public administration on the central level are not carried out efficiently and some competences of public administration can be transferred to the local levels. Thus, the problems of competences and public finance distribution between central level (state) and other levels (regional or local) are the main aspects to discuss in the theories of fiscal federalism and fiscal decentralization. In the theory of fiscal federalism the problem of taxes allocation between different levels of government is considered to be one of important tools for realization of stabilization and allocation functions of public finance. It should be noted that one of the theoretical and research problems is how to evaluate the measure for financial decentralization. There are different approaches to this problem in modern research such as qualitative (for example, grouping countries based on some qualitative criteria or experts’ evaluation of reforms focuse on financial decentralization) or quantitative ( a set of different ratios, geometric mean of different indicators, aggregated index, etc.). The purpose of the research is to obtain the aggregated indicators for evaluation of public finance distribution on central and local levels and to analyze the balance between these indicators for EU countries. For our research we used the idea of aggregated indicator to evaluate the measure of dependence upon central government expenditure and measure of local autonomy development. Due to the methodology for calculation of aggregated index proposed by Helwig the value of the aggregated index is varied from 0 to 1, or from minimal possible level to maximum possible level of the generalized characteristics described by the original set of indicators. Thus, if measure of public finance dependence upon central government Int_C is more closed to 1, then central government plays a greater role in expenditure for public finance. If measure of local autonomy Int_L is more closed to 1, then local government has more opportunities in their revenue and expenditure. It should be noted that for the balanced position of the country on the plot the values of the Int_C and Int_L should be equal to or lie on 45 degree line. If the bundles lie upper 45 degree line it means that level of local autonomy is more expressed, and vice versa, if the bundles lie lower 45 degree line it means that level of local autonomy is less expressed. The aggregated indices Int_C and Int_L were calculated for EU countries during the period of 2002–2017 and it makes possible to evaluate the features of national fiscal policy in balance between distribution of funds for central and local levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".