Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27047708›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2016

Devolution and grant-in-aid design for the provision of impure public goods.

Laura Levaggi, Rosella Levaggi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laura LevaggiFaculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bolzano-Bozen, Piazza Università 1, 39100 Bolzano-Bozen, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9692-3114
Rosella LevaggiDepartment of Economics and Management, University of Brescia, Via S. Faustino, 74b, 25122 Brescia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6018-1283

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional fiscal federalism theory postulates that devolution for the provision of local public goods increases welfare. However, most of the services offered at local level are local impure public goods whose characteristics may prevent devolution from being efficient. Our paper shows that devolution is the optimal choice only for local impure public goods. For an environment characterised by coordination and asymmetry of information problems, we propose the optimal grants-in-aid formula that Central Government should use to reduce welfare losses and we compare it with what suggested by the mainstream literature. Finally, we show under which conditions devolution should be preferred to a centralised solution. From a policy point of view, our paper may explain the heterogeneity in the choices made by countries in terms of devolution in the provision of merit and impure public goods.

Indexed as

DevolutionGrants-in-aidImpure public goodsSpillovers

Identifiers

PMID27047708
PMCPMC4779452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.