0w2010 01 RESUM EJECUTIVO 03 DEFcarta ang
26/10/10
19:49
Página 31
Second Global Report on Decentralization and Local Democracy. GOLD 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2:
Intergovernmental System Performance
Country
Resource Adequacy
Fiscal Discretion
Performance Incentives
Management Capacity
Service Outcomes
Indonesia
Current resources adequate for most LGs; some relatively small number of LGs have insufficient funds.
LGs set tax rates under centrally imposed ceilings; LGs have (almost) complete discretion over spending.
Minor and ad-hoc experience with performance incentives. Formal encouragement of local revenue effort through block transfers discontinued
LGs administer taxes and spend resources inefficiently. Significant accumulation of cash reserves.
Weak service outcomes.
Philippines
Inadequate resources for significant number of LGs, particularly municipalities.
LGs set some tax rates but can make changes only every 3 years. CG heavily influences LG spending; Unfunded mandates a particular concern.
Explicit use of incentives limited to employment of transfer intercept in cases of non-repayment of loans.
LGs administer taxes ineffectively and manage spending poorly. Significant cash buildups.
Weak service outcomes.
Vietnam
LG resource adequacy questionable, especially for development and maintenance of infrastructure.
LGs have very limited tax authority. Moderate discretion over management of service delivery.
No experience with performance incentives.
Tax administration completely centralized so local capacity not an issue. Spending reasonably well managed—low wage bills.
Significant improvements needed. Little horizontal accountability in most provinces.
Thailand
LGs have sufficient resources, given unclear responsibilities.
Taxing discretion limited to minor charges/fees; spending heavily influenced by CG.
No experience with performance incentives.
Local efforts to improve tax and expenditure administration underway—tax system computerization and contracting out services.
Generally weak outcomes but improving responsiveness.
India
Large urban LG resources reasonably adequate; small urban and rural governments severely resource constrained.
LGs have very little fiscal discretion. States control local taxing and spending to large extent.
States have made significant use of incentives but rewards focus on past not future behavior.
States have made significant use of incentives but rewards focus on past not future behavior.
Weak tax administration and expenditure management.
Australia
LGs seem to have sufficient resources for their responsibilities
Discretion generally high, but some State interference in tax rates and bases
Little experience with performance incentives in fiscal transfer arrangements
LG has high level capacity to manage revenue collection and budget implementation
Outcomes generally of good standard
New Zealand LGs seem to have sufficient resources for their responsibilities
Discretion generally high
Little experience with performance incentives in fiscal transfer arrangements
LG has high level capacity to manage revenue collection and budget implementation
Outcomes generally of good standard
31