commission on fiscal imbalance 合集

Given that such devolution has been in place for only

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: anizational and administrative innovation to accelerate and make effective structural fund spending Carrying out of measures aiming at the implementation of sector reforms B.1.1 Delegation of managerial responsibilities to officials (legislative decree n. 29/93) B.1.2 Set up and implementation of an internal control management unit B.1.3 Implementation of one back-stop shop B.1.4 Implementation of employment services B.1.4. Set up of regional and central administration evaluation units B.1.5 Development of the information society in the P.A. B.1.6 Preparation and approval of territorial and landscape programming documents B.1.7 Concession or management by a private-public operator of integrated water services (L.36/94) B.1.8 Choice of management mode and its implementation for urban solid waste within optimal service areas B.1.9 Set up and operational performance of regional environmental agencies B.2 INTEGRATION For regional administrations Implementation of territorial integrated projects B.2.1 Incidence of commitments of integrated territorial projects on the total amount of resources budgeted for integrated territorial projects in the operational programme For central administrations Degree of integration of national operational programmes with regional planning B.2.2 Share of commitments of the investments programmed within a programme framework agreement (Accordo di programma quadro) or any other negotiated agreement between central and regional administrations over total commitments B.3 CONCENTRATION Concentration of financial resources 264 B.3.1 Concentration of financial resources within a limited amount of measures Commission on Fiscal Imbalance DECENTRALIZATION IN SOME NON-FEDERAL COUNTRIES: THE CASE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM By David Heald 1. INTRODUCTION The United Kingdom differs from many of the countries discussed at this symposium because it is a unitary state characterized by Executive-dominated Parliamentary government and a highly centralized system of public finances. Nevertheless, it is embarking on a process of asymmetric internal devolution at exactly the same time as European Union (EU) developments are raising far-reaching questions about future economic, monetary and fiscal arrangements. 1 Inevitably, this paper cannot be fully comprehensive in its coverage. However, it seeks to explain and analyze contemporary UK developments. The paper is structured in the following way. After this brief Introduction, Section II sets the context. Section III describes the devolved funding system in 2001. Section IV considers real and imagined problems. It sets out possible developments, paying particular attention to current policy debates about the present funding system and about fiscal autonomy (regarding which there was much coverage in Scotland during the 2001 UK General Election). Section V discusses similarities and differences between the United Kingdom and Canada, with regard to territorial public finance. Section VI provides brief conclusions. The focus of this paper is upon the fisc...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/06/2013 for the course ECON 220 taught by Professor Paulo during the Spring '13 term at University of Liverpool.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online