The Political Economy of the Malaysian Subnational Governments’ Fiscal Behavior

Authors

  • Ahmad Zafarullah Abdul Jalil College of Arts and Sciences Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/ijms2009.16.1.12

Keywords:

State governments, fiscal behaviour, political economy

Abstract

This article attempts to shed light on the political economy of the Malaysian state governments’ budgetary behaviour by tailoring hypotheses drawn from recent theoretical literature to the Malaysian institutional context and testing them empirically. The main objective here was to examine whether state governments’ fiscal behaviour can partly be explained by the political attributes and the institutional characteristics of the government, and of the legislature. In particular, the study analysed whether the incentives for the state governments to observe a prudent spending behaviour have not been undermined by the fact that they have been able to influence relevant central government decisions regarding their finance. The estimation results showed that states that are over-represented at the executive level tend to have higher spending and deficits. However, no correlation was found between over-representation at the parliament and state governments’ fiscal outcomes. This can be explained by the fact that in Malaysia, as is frequently the case in developing nations, the legislature is peripheral to the executive in terms of decision-making power.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ansolabehere, S., & Snyder, J.M. (2003). Party control of state government and the distribution of public expenditures. Unpublished paper, Departments of Political Science and Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297. IJMS 16 (1), 261-283 (2009) 281

Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51.

Balla, S. J., Lawrence, E. D., Maltzman, F., & Sigelman, L. (2002). Partisanship, blame avoidance, and the distribution of legislative pork. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 515–25. www.ijms.uum.edu.my

Belleflamme, P., & Hindriks, J. (2003). Yardstick competition and political agency problems. Social Choice and Welfare, 24(1), 155-69.

Besley, T., & Coate, S. (2003). Centralised versus decentralised provision of local public goods: A political economy approach. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2611-37.

Bordignon M., Cerniglia, F., & Revelli, F. (2004). Yardstick competition in intergovernmental relationships: Theory and empirical predictions. Economics Letters, 83, 325-33.

Bickers, K.N., & Stein, R.M. (1996). The electoral dynamics of the federal pork barrel. American Journal of Political Science, 40(4), 1300–25.

Case, A. (2001). Election goals and income redistribution: Recent evidence from Albania. European Economic Review, 45, 405–23.

Cox, G.W., & McCubbins, M.D. (1986). Electoral politics as a redistributive game. Journal of Politics, 48, 370–89.

Crisp, B., & Ingall, R.E. (2002). Institutional engineering and the nature of representation: Mapping the effects of electoral reform in Colombia. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 733–48.

Dahlberg, M., & Johansson, E. (2002). On the vote-purchasing behavior of incumbent governments, American Political Science Review, 96(1), 27–40.

Diaz-Cayeros, A., Magaloni, B., & Weingast, B. (2000). Federalism and democratisation in Mexico. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.

Dixit, A., & Londregan, J. (1996). The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1132–55.

Heller, P.S., & Diamond, J. (1990). International comparisons of government expenditure revisited: The developing countries, 1975-86. IMF Occasional Paper 69.

Herron, M.C., & Theodos, B.A. (2004). Government redistribution in the shadow of legislative elections: A study of the Illinois member initiative grants programme. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29(2), 287–311.

Hindriks, J., & Lockwood, B. (2005). Decentralisation and political accountability: Incentives, separation and voter welfare. CEPR Discussion Paper, 5125.

Horiuchi, Y., & Lee, S. (2004). Regionalism and redistribution in South Korea. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australasian Political Studies Association, Adelaide. 282 IJMS 16 (1), 261-283 (2009)

Levitt, S.D., & Snyder, J.M. (1995). Political parties and the distribution offederal outlays. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 958–80.

Lowi, T. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies and political theory. World Politics, 16, 677-715.

Milesi-Feretti, G.M, Perotti, R., & Rostagno, M. (2001) Electoral systems and public spending. IMF Working Paper WP/01/22. www.ijms.uum.edu.my

Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political economics: Explaining economic policy. Cambrigde: MIT Press.

Mueller, D.C. (2003). Public choice III. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ram, R. (1987). Wagner’s hypothesis in time-series and cross-cection perspectives: Evidence from real data for 115 countries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 194-204.

Rodden, J. (2005). The political economy of federalism. In Weingast B. & D. Wittman (Eds). Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. London: Oxford University Press.

Rodden, J., & Arretche, M. (2004). Legislative bargaining and distributive politics in Brazil: An empirical approach. Unpublished paper, MIT.

Safire, W. (1978). Safire’s political dictionary. New York: Random House.

Snyder, J. (1989). Election goals and the allocation of campaign resources. Econometrica, 57, 637-60.

Weingast B.R., Shepsle, K.A., & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive policies. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 642-664. IJMS 16 (1), 261-283 (2009) 283

Downloads

Published

30-06-2009

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-24
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/ijms2009.16.1.12 OpenAlex W7052096695