Croatia : Fiscal (De)centralization and Public Service Delivery

This report discusses the contours of a possible strategic direction, the necessary basic institutional set up for implementation, and key reform policy options to be tackled in order to complete the foundations of the decentralization reform initiated in 2001. Croatia is still a highly centralized country in terms of decision making on public service financing and delivery, as compared to most of the new European Union members. One indicator is that the sub-national Government's budget still corresponds to five percent of GDP, while in the newly accessed countries it was about eight percent on average in their immediate pre-accession phase. The Government of Croatia is conscious about the critical importance of improving citizens' voice, transparency and accountability on public affairs, especially on matters of local interest, in order to increase efficiency on public service delivery and rapidly converge to European Union standards on a sustainable basis. The Government started its decentralization reforms in July 2001, although they have not yet adequately implemented them to make the reform process sustainable.

Bibliographic Details

Main Author:	World Bank
Language:	English en_US
Published:	Washington, DC 2012-01
Subjects:	ACCESS TO CAPITAL, ACCOUNTABILITY, ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, ARREARS, ASSETS, AUTHORITY, BANKS, BLOCK GRANTS, BONDS, BUDGET REVENUES, BUDGET SYSTEM, BUDGETARY AUTONOMY, BUDGETING, BUREAUCRACY, BUREAUCRATIC INTERFERENCE, CAPACITY BUILDING, CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, CAPITAL EXPENDITURE RESPONSIBILITIES, CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, CAPITAL GRANTS, CAPITAL INVESTMENT, CAPITAL MARKET, CAPITAL MARKETS, CENTRAL AUTHORITIES, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, CENTRAL INSTITUTIONS, CENTRALIZATION, CITIZENS, CIVIL SERVICE, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CONSTITUTION, COUNCILS, COURT SYSTEM, CREDIBILITY, CREDITWORTHINESS, DEBT MANAGEMENT, DEBT SERVICE, DECENTRALIZATION, DECENTRALIZATION OBJECTIVES, DECENTRALIZATION PROCESS, DECENTRALIZATION REFORM, DECENTRALIZATION REFORMS, DECISION MAKING, DECISION-MAKING, DECREES, DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE, DEVOLUTION, EFFICIENCY OF SERVICE DELIVERY, EFFICIENT RESOURCE ALLOCATION, EMPLOYMENT, EQUALIZATION, EXCESSIVE DEFICITS, EXECUTIVE BODIES, EXECUTIVE POWER, EXPENDITURE, EXPENDITURE ALLOCATION, EXPENDITURE PRIORITIES, FINANCIAL CAPACITIES, FINANCIAL CRISES, FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, FINANCIAL INCENTIVES, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, FISCAL AUTONOMY, FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION, FISCAL INCENTIVES, FISCAL MANAGEMENT, FISCAL REPORTING SYSTEMS, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, FISCAL TRANSFER, FISCAL TRANSFERS, FISCAL TRANSPARENCY, GARBAGE COLLECTION, GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES, GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT FINANCE, GOVERNMENT LEVEL, GOVERNMENT LEVELS, GOVERNMENT POLICY, GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, GOVERNMENT STRATEGY, GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET, HARD BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, HOUSING, HUMAN RESOURCES, INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK, INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL RELATIONS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL SYSTEM, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, INVESTMENT GRANTS, JUDICIAL SYSTEM, JUDICIARY, LAWS, LEGAL FRAMEWORK, LEGALITY, LEGISLATION, LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK, LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT, LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, LEVIES, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, LOCAL AUTONOMY, LOCAL BUSINESSES, LOCAL EXPENDITURES, LOCAL FEES, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE, LOCAL REVENUE, LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, LOCAL TAX, LOCAL TAXES, MACROECONOMIC POLICY, MACROECONOMIC STABILITY, MARKET ECONOMY, MARKET VALUE, MAYORS, MINISTERS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, MORAL HAZARDS, MUNICIPAL, MUNICIPAL DEBT, MUNICIPALITIES, NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE, NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, NATIONAL SERVICE, NATIONAL TAXES, POLICY FORMULATION, POLICY IMPLEMENTATION, POLICY INSTRUMENT, POLICY OBJECTIVES, POLICY OUTCOMES, POLICY REFORM, POLICY RESULTS, PRIVATE SECTOR, PROPERTY RIGHTS, PROVISIONS, PUBLIC, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PUBLIC COMPANIES, PUBLIC DEBT, PUBLIC ENTITIES, PUBLIC ENTITY, PUBLIC EXPENDITURES, PUBLIC PROPERTY, PUBLIC RESOURCES, PUBLIC SECTOR, PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM, PUBLIC SERVANTS, PUBLIC SERVICE, PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY, PUBLIC SERVICES, RATIONALIZATION, REFERENDUM, REGULATORY FRAMEWORK, RESOURCE ALLOCATION, RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS, REVENUE ASSIGNMENT, REVENUE ASSIGNMENT SYSTEM, REVENUE AUTONOMY, REVENUE CAPACITY, REVENUE MOBILIZATION, REVENUE RATIO, REVENUE SOURCE, REVENUE STRUCTURE, ROADS, SAVINGS, SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, SOCIAL COST, SOFT BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, STATE ADMINISTRATION, STATE AUTHORITIES, STATE BUDGET, STATE INSTITUTIONS, SUB-NATIONAL, SUB-NATIONAL AUTHORITIES, SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, SUBNATIONAL, SUBNATIONAL AUTHORITIES, SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE, SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY, SUPERVISORY POWERS, TAX BASE, TAX BURDEN, TAX EFFORT, TAX EFFORTS, TAX EXEMPTIONS, TAX LAW, TAX LIABILITY, TAX PAYERS, TAX REVENUE, TAX SHARING, TAXATION, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TOWN, TOWNS, TRANSPARENCY, TRANSPORT, UNFUNDED MANDATES, VERTICAL BALANCE, WATER SUPPLY,
Online Access:	http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/01/16279569/croatia-croatia-fiscal-decentralization-public-service-delivery https://hdl.handle.net/10986/12511
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!