Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Role of Fiscal Decentralization in Municipal Budgets: Case of the Czech Republic Cover

The Role of Fiscal Decentralization in Municipal Budgets: Case of the Czech Republic

Open Access
|Apr 2021

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Share of immovable property tax in total tax revenue of local governments (LG) (mil. CZK)

20092010201120122013
Total tax revenue of LG180,340187,984187,161191,009208,443
Immovable property tax6,3208,6648,6099,6029,736
Immovable property tax (%)45555
20142015201620172018
Total tax revenue of LG219,391226,301249,498270,743295,190
Immovable property tax9,97310,33410,58610,76510,856
Immovable property tax (%)55444
2019
Total tax revenue of LG320,174
Immovable property tax10,909
Immovable property tax (%)3
Table 2

The significance of immovable property tax in the budget of municipal units in 2019

AverageMaximumMinimum
The share of immovable property tax in the total municipality tax revenue (%)8.2169.100.02
The share of immovable property tax in the total municipality income (%)5.8463.420.01
Table 3

The relation between the budgetary balance and application of the local coefficient in 2019

TotalMunicipalities with local coefficientMunicipalities with (%) local coefficient
Municipalities with budget deficit1,71419211.20
Municipalities with budget surplus4,5384078.97
Figure 1

The comparison of the total income and expenditure of municipalities in 2019 (in millions CZK)

Source: Ministry of Finance of the CR, 2020a; Ministry of Finance of the CR, 2020b; Ministry of Finance of the CR, 2020c

Table 4

The relation between the budgetary balance and application of the local coefficient in 2019

With immovable property tax receiptsWithout immovable property tax receipts
Municipalities with budget deficit1,71427%2,31237%
Municipalities with budget surplus4,53873%3,94063%
Table 5

The relation between the income of municipal units with/without immovable property tax (IPT) receipts, and the number of inhabitants in 2019

Total number of municipalitiesBudget deficit with IPT receiptsBudget deficit without IPT receiptsIncrease
≤ 2,000 inhab.5,5491,42925.75%1,94535.05%9.30%
2,001–8,000 inhab.53922341.37%27551.02%9.65%
≥8,001 inhab.1646237.80%9256.10%18.29%
Table 6

The improvement of the budgetary balance after applying local coefficient (LC) in 2019

Municipalities without LCMunicipalities with LC 2Municipalities with LC 3Municipalities with LC 4
Municipalities with budget deficit1,522151297
Budget surplus with LC 230920.30%
Budget surplus with LC 322614.85%5133.77%
Budget surplus with LC 418111.89%2211.57%1241.38%
Budget surplus with LC 51489.72%2516.56%620.69%342.86%
Budget deficit even with LC 565843.23%5335.10%1137.93%457.14%
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/danb-2021-0005 | Journal eISSN: 1804-8285 | Journal ISSN: 1804-6746 (formerly 1804-8285)
Language: English
Page range: 61 - 76
Published on: Apr 22, 2021
Published by: European Research University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2021 Břetislav Andrlík, Martina Halamová, Lucie Formanová, published by European Research University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.