As a result of the dramatic growth in functional decentralization processes in Portuguese municipalities, this study examines public services delivery in the 308 Portuguese local governments existing in 2011. By using Biplot analyses, the aim of this study is to analyse the Portuguese functional decentralization processes by population ranges and service type. The results show that functional decentralization is more often used in the largest cities, mainly because of the need to meet citizens’ demands and moreover, the opportunistic use by politicians since they could transfer part of the expenditure and debt to these newly created agencies. In addition, the results show that water, urban planning, cultural and economic services are the most decentralized. By contrast, decentralized agencies are not used for the provision of health services in any municipality, and protection, social and environment services are decentralized in very few municipalities.
AberbachJ., & RockmanB. (1999). Reinventar el gobierno: problemas y perspectivas. Gestión y Política Pública, 15, 3–18.
2.
AndrewsR., & BoyneG.A. (2009). Size, structure and administrative overheads: An empirical analysis of English local authorities. Urban Studies, 46, 739–759.
3.
ArgentoD., GrossiG., TagessonT., & CollinS.O. (2010). The externalisation of local public service delivery: experience in Italy and Sweden. International Journal of Public Policy, 5, 41–56.
4.
AshworthJ., GeysB., & HeyndelsB. (2005). Government Weakness and Local Public Debt Development in Flemish Municipalities. International Tax and Public Finance, 12, 395–422.
5.
BendorJ. (1985). Parallel Systems: Redundancy in Government. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
BenitoB., BastidaF., & MuñozM.J. (2010). Factores explicativos de la presión fiscal municipal. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 13, 239–283.
7.
BennettJ. T., & DiLorenzoT.J. (1982). Off-budget activities of local government: The bane of the Tax Revolt. Public Choice, 39, 333–342.
8.
BennettJ. T., & DiLorenzoT.J. (1984). Off-budget activities of local government: Reply. Public Choice, 42, 213–215.
9.
BlewettR. A. (1984). Off-budget activities of local government: Comment. Public Choice, 42, 205–211.
10.
BoyneG. A. (1996). Constraints, choices and public policies. London: Jai Press.
11.
BrownT. L., & PotoskiM. (2003a). Managing contract performance: A transaction costs approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22, 275–297.
12.
BrownT. L., & PotoskiM. (2003b). Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government service production decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 441–468.
13.
BunchB.S. (1991). The effect of constitutional debt limits on state governments use of public authorities. Public Choice, 68, 57–69.
CarvalhoM. F. D. (2011). Gestão Pública: Um novo paradigma para a governação da Administração Local em Portugal. Paper presented at the 8° Congresso Nacional de Administração Pública, Oeiras, Portugal.
16.
CarvalhoJ. B., & TeixeiraA. (2007). Recurso ao crédito por parte das Autarquias Locais: 30 anos de poder local na Constituição da República Portuguesa. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.
17.
CuadradoJ. R. (2008). ¿Son necesarias tantas empresas públicas autonómicas y municipales?. Expansión, 24th June.
18.
Cuadrado-BallesterosB., García-SánchezI.M., & Prado-LorenzoJ.M. (2012). Effects of different modes of local public services delivery on quality of life in Spain. Journal of Cleaner Productions, 37, 68–81.
19.
Cuadrado-BallesterosB., García-SánchezI.M., & Prado-LorenzoJ.M. (2013a). The Impact of Political Factors on Local Government Decentralisation. International Public Management Journal, 16, 53–84.
20.
Cuadrado-BallesterosB., García-SánchezI.M., & Prado-LorenzoJ.M. (2013b). Determinants of functional decentralisation and their relation to debt: Empirical evidenced based on the analysis of Spanish Municipalities. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79, 701–723.
21.
Cuadrado-BallesterosB., García-SánchezI.M., & Prado-LorenzoJ.M. (2013c). Public services delivery: The case of Spanish local governments. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 11, 119–137.
22.
Cuadrado-BallesterosB., García-SánchezI. M., & Prado-LorenzoJ. M. (2013d). Effect of modes of public services delivery on the efficiency of local governments: A two-stage approach. Utilities Policy, 26, 23–35.
23.
Díez-TicioA., & MancebónM. J. (2003). Análisis de la eficiencia de las institituciones encargadas de la seguridad ciudadana. Papeles de Economía Española, 95, 306–19.
DixitA., & LondreganJ. (1998). Ideology, Tactics, and Efficiency in Redistributive Politics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 497–529.
26.
DomínguezI. E. (1999). Sostenibilidad y descentralización en las Administraciones Territoriales. In Nuevas formas de financiación de proyectos públicos, Editorial Civitas, 193–230.
27.
DownsA. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
28.
DunleavyP. (1991). Democracy Burocracy and Public Choice: Economic Explanations in Political Science. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
29.
EscuderoP. (2002). Descentralización de servicios y endeudamiento. El caso de los ayuntamientos catalanes. Barcelona: Trabajo de Investigación, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
30.
GabrielK. R., & OdoroffC. L. (1990). Biplots in biomedical research. Statistics in Medicine, 9, 469–485.
31.
GabrielK. R. (1971). The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika, 58, 453–467.
32.
GalindoM. P. (1985). Contribución a la representación simultanea de datos multidimensionales. Salamanca: Doctoral dissertation., University of Salamanca.
33.
GalindoM. P. (1986). Una alternativa de representación simultánea. HJ Biplot. Questíio, 10, 13–23.
34.
GarcíaG. L. (2000). I am the Other: Puerto Rico in the Eyes of North Americans, 1898. Journal of American History, 87, 39–64.
35.
García-SánchezI. M. (2006). Efficiency measurement in Spanish Local Government: The case of water services. Review of Policy Research, 23, 355–371.
36.
García-SánchezI. M., Frías-AceitunoJ. V., & Rodríguez-DomínguezL. (2013). Determinants of corporate social disclosure in Spanish local governments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 60–72.
37.
García-SánchezI. M., Prado-LorenzoJ. M., & Cuadrado-BallesterosB. (2011). Do progressive governments undertake different debt burdens? Partisan vs. electoral cycles. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 14, 29–57.
38.
González-CabreraJ., Hidalgo-MartínezM., Martín-MateosE., & Vicente-TaveraS. (2006). Study of the evolution of air pollution in Salamanca (Spain) along a five year period (1994–1998) using HJ-Biplot simultaneous representation analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 21, 61–68.
39.
GowerJ. C., & HandD. J. (1996). Biplots. London: Chapman and Hall.
40.
GrossiG., & MussariR. (2008). Effects of outsourcing on performance measurement and reporting: the experience of Italian local governments. Public Budgeting and Finance, 28, 22–38.
41.
GrossiG., & ThomassonA. (2011). Jointly owned companies as instrument of Local Government: Comparative evidence from the Swedish and Italian water services. Policy Studies, 32, 277–289.
42.
GuillamónM. D., BenitoB., & BastidaF. (2011). Evaluación de la deuda pública local en España. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 150, 251–285.
43.
GunnL. (1987). Perspectives on Public Management. In KooimanJ., & EliassenK. A. (eds.), Managing Public Organizations, London: Sage.
44.
GuptaD. N. (2004). Decentralization, Need for Reforms. New Delhi: Concept Publications.
45.
HagenT. P., & VaboS. I. (2005). Political Characteristics, Institutional Procedures and Fiscal Performance: Panel Data Analyses of Norwegian Local Governments, 1991–1998. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 43–64.
46.
HayekF. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review, 35, 519–530.
47.
HaynesP. (2003). Managing complexity in the public services. London: Open University Press.
48.
HongJ. H. (2011). Does Decentralization Worsen Regional Disparity? The Case of Korea. Taiwan Association for Schools of Public Administration and Affairs International Conference - Retrospect and Prospect on Public Affairs of the 100th Founding Anniversary of the Republic of China.
49.
LindstedtC., & NaurinD. (2008). Transparency Against Corruption: A Cross Country Analysis. Poster presented at Economics of Corruption. University of Passau, Germany, 26th August 2006.
50.
MarlowM. L., & JoulfaianD. (1989). The determinants of off-budget activity of state and local governments. Public Choice, 63, 113–123.
51.
MarshallA. (2004). Principles of economics. Digireads.com Publishing.
52.
MillerT. I., & MillerM. A. (1991). Standards of Excelience: US Residents' Evaluation of Local Government Services. Public Administration Review, 51, 503–514.
53.
MirandaR., & AllanL. (1995). Bureaucracy, Organizational Redundancy, and the Privatization of Public Services. Public Administration Review, 55, 193–200.
54.
MitchellW. E. (1967). The Effectiveness of Debt Limit on State and Local Government Borrowing. New York: New York University, Institute of Finance.
55.
MolinariJ., & TyerCh. (2003). Local government enterprise fund activity: Trends and implications. Public Administration Quarterly, 27, 369–391.
56.
MonasterioC., SánchezI., & BlancoF. (1999). Controles internos del endeudamiento versus racionamiento de crédito. Estudio especial del caso de las Comunidades Autónomas españolas. Bilbao: Fundación Banco Bilbao Vizcaya.
57.
MontesinosV., BruscaI., & MoraL. (2010). La descentralización de servicios en el sector local: factores explicativos e implicaciones. Paper presented at the 14th ASEPUC Meeting, A Coruña, Spain.
58.
NavarroA., AlcarazF. J., & OrtizD. (2010). La divulgación de información sobre responsabilidad corporativa en administraciones públicas: Un estudio empírico en gobiernos locales. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review, 13, 285–314.
59.
Navarro-GaleraA., & Rodríguez BolívarM. P. (2011). Utilidad del modelo de valoración de las IPSAS para la rendición de cuentas de los gobiernos: la perspectiva de los OCEX. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 149, 125–162.
60.
NiskanenW. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
61.
NorthD. C. (1990). A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2, 355–367.
62.
OliveiraA. (2001). Empresas Municipais e Intermunicipais: Entre o Público e o Privado. Revista de Administração e Políticas Públicas, 2, 126–136.
63.
OsborneM. J., & SlivinskiA. (1996). A model of political competition with citizen-candidates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 65–96.
64.
Pettersson-LidbomP. (2001). An Empirical Investigation of the Strategic Use of Debt. The Journal of Political Economy, 109, 570–83.
65.
PierreJ., & GuyB. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. London: Macmillan.
66.
PollittC., & BouckaertG. (2000). The nature of public management reform: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67.
Prado-LorenzoJ. M., & García-SánchezI. M. (2006). La utilización de la planificación la estratégica y de los indicadores de gestión en el ámbito municipal: análisis empírico de los factores que afectan a su implantación. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 35, 645–672.
68.
Prado-LorenzoJ. M., Martín-JiménezD., & García-SánchezI. M. (2009). Endeudamiento e ideología política como factores determinantes de la creación de empresas públicas autonómicas. Análisis Local, 84, 27–36.
69.
RhodesR. A. W. (1994). The hollowing out of the state: the changing nature of the state in Britain. Political Quarterly, 65, 138–151.
70.
RohlfF. J. (2001). Statistical power comparisons among alternative morphometric methods. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 111, 463–478.
71.
RibeiroN. A. B. (2013). Fatore determinantes do endividamento na Administraçao local: O caso dos municípios portugueses. Madrid: Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
72.
RibeiroN. A., & JorgeS. M. (2013). O ciclo estratégico do endividamento nos municípios portugueses. Paper presented at XVII AECA Congress, Pamplona (Spain).
73.
RodriguesM., TavaresA. F., & AraújoJ. F. (2012). Municipal service delivery: The role of transaction costs in the choice between alternative governance mechanisms. Local Government Studies, 38, 615–638.
74.
RubinI. S. (1988). Municipal enterprises: exploring budgetary and political implications. Public Administration Review, 48, 542–550.
75.
SandersonI. (1996). Evaluation, learning and the effectiveness of public services: Towards a quality of public service model. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9, 90–108.
76.
TavaresA. F., & CamoesP. J. (2007). Local service delivery choices in Portugal: a political transition-cost framework. Local Government Studies, 33, 535–553.
77.
TavaresA. F., & CamoesP. J. (2010). New forms of local governance. A theoretical and empirical analysis of municipal corporations in Portugal. Public Management Review, 12, 587–608.
78.
TyerC. (1989). Municipal enterprises and taxing and spending polices: public avoidance and fiscal illusions. Public Administration Review, 49, 249–256.
79.
UtrillaA. (2007). El sector público empresarial autonómico y local. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Económicos.
80.
VengroffR., & ReveronZ. (1997). Decentralization and Local Government Efficiency in Canadian Provinces: A Comparative Perspective. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 16, 195–214.
81.
Vicente-VillardónJ. L. (2010). Multibiplot: A package for Multivariate Analysis using Biplots.Departamento de Estadística - Universidad de Salamanca. Available at http://biplot.usal.es/ClassicalBiplot/index.html.
82.
Vicente-VillardónJ. L. (2001). Biplot 2000. Un programa para la interpretación de Biplots. Paper presented at the XXVI Nacional de Estadística e Investigación Operativa. Úbeda, Spain.
83.
Vincente-VillardonJ. L., Galindo-VillardonM. P., & Blazquez-ZaballosA. (2006). Logistic biplots. In GreenacreM., & BlasiusJ. (Eds.), Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods.Londres: Chapman & Hall / CRC Press.
84.
WilliamsonO. E. (1989). Market Efficiency. In LuceD., SmelserN. J., & GersteinD. R. (Eds.). Leading Edges in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. California: Russell Sage Foundation.
85.
YamamotoH. (2003). New Public Management-Japan's Practice. Institute for International Policy Studies Policy Paper 293E. Tokyo: IIPS.
