Land-based tax capacity and tax effort of the state governments in Peninsular Malaysia: a Representative Revenue System (RRS) approach
List of Authors
  • Ahmad Zafarullah Abdul Jalil

Keyword
  • Public Sector Management, State Governments, Fiscal Performance, Tax Effort, Tax Capacity

Abstract
  • The Auditor General Report 2004 revealed that seven out of 13 states in Malaysia are facing dire financial difficulties to the extent of being qualified as at the verge of bankruptcy. One of the solutions proposed would be to devolve more tax responsibilities to the state governments. However, some authors have argued that the Malaysian state governments have not been using their tax base efficiently and the devolution of more tax responsibilities towards them will only result in more inefficiency. It is thus important to gauge the fiscal effort exerted by the state governments before any attempts being made towards increasing tax responsibilities of the state governments. The main objective of this article is to measure the fiscal effort and capacity of the state governments in Peninsular Malaysia. In order to achieve this, we will use the Representative Revenue System (RRS)/ Representative Tax System (RTS) approach. This paper will discuss the preliminary findings of the research using the 2008 data. Our results show that more-developed states tend to have higher index of tax effort compared to the less-developed ones. It is also shown that state governments with high fiscal effort are in a relatively better fiscal position. However, tax arrears do not seem to correlate with the level of tax effort.

Reference
  • Ahmad Zafarullah, A.J. 2008. Decentralization, subnational governments’ behavior and macroeconomic instability. PhD Thesis, CERDI – Universite d’Auvergne, Clermont Ferrand I, France.
    Boex, J., & Martinez-Vazquez, J. 2007. Designing intergovernmental equalization transfers with imperfect data: Concepts, practices and lessons. In Martinez-Vazquez J. & B. Searle (eds), Fiscal Equalization: Challenges in the Design of Intergovernmental Transfers, (pp. 291-345). New York: Springer.
    Chervin, S. 2007. Fiscal effort, fiscal capacity and fiscal need: Separate concepts, separate problems. Fiscal Flexibility, 3, 11-25.
    Hy R.J., Boland, C., Hopper, R., & Sims, R.. 1993. Measuring revenue capacity and effort of county governments: A case study of Arkansas. Public Administration Review, 53(3),220-227.
    Umi Kalsom, N. 1987. Federalism in Malaysia, 1971-87. PhD Thesis, University of Malaya.
    Shafruddin, H. 1987. The federal factor in the government and politics of Peninsular Malaysia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
    Sobarzo, H. 2004. Tax effort and tax potential of state governments in Mexico: A Representative Tax System. Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies Working Paper 315.
    Tannenwald, R., & Turner, N. 1999. Interstate fiscal disparity in state fiscal year 1999. Public Policy Discussion Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    Tannenwald, R. 1999. Fiscal disparity among the states revisited. New England Economic Review, July/August, 3‐25.
    Tannenwald, R. 2002. Interstate fiscal disparity in 1997. New England Economic Review, Third Quarter, 17‐33.
    United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations. 1962. Measures of state and local fiscal capacity and tax effort. Information Report M-16. Washington, DC: ACIR.
    United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations. 1971. Measuring the fiscal capacity and effort of state and local areas. Information Report M-58. Washington, DC: ACIR.
    United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations. 1986. Measuring state fiscal capacity: Alternative methods and their uses. Information Report M-150. Washington, DC: ACIR.
    United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations. 1990. State fiscal capacity and effort. Information Report M-170. Washington, DC: ACIR.
    Yilmaz Y., Hoo, S., Nagowski, M., Rueben, K., & Tannenwald, R. 2002. Measuring fiscal disparities across the U.S. states: A Representative Revenue System/Representative Expenditure System approach, fiscal year 2002. NEPPC Working Paper 06-2. A joint report with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.