Sinek Kâğıdı Etkisi Türkiye’de Geçerli midir? Belediyeler Üzerine Bir Çalışma

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 39, 55 - 68, 31.01.2019

Yasin Acar

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2019.01.03

Cited By: 4

Öz

Bu makalede, 1997-2005 yılları arasında Türkiye’deki tüm il ve ilçe belediyelerinin mali verilerini içeren yeni ve detaylı panel veri seti kullanılarak sinek kâğıdı etkisi ve onun yerelde vergi gayreti ile ilişkisi araştırılmıştır. Sabit etki ve dinamik panel veri GMM tahmin yöntemlerinden faydalanarak sinek kâğıdı etkininin varlığı test edilmiştir. Tahmin sonuçlarına göre, Türkiye’de belediyelerde sinek kâğıdı etkisi varlığı ortaya konulmuştur. Bu sonuç, çeşitli model ve ekonometrik tekniklerle desteklenmiştir. Ayrıca, şartsız olarak merkezi yönetimden belediyelere verilen mali transferlerin yerelde gelir toplama gayreti üzerinde ikame etkisinin olduğu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sinek Kağıdı Etkisi, Mali Transferler, Mali Federalizm, Belediyeler, GMM

Does Flypaper Effect Exist? New Evidence from Turkish Municipalities

Öz

In this paper, we investigate the phenomenon of flypaper effect and its relation to the local tax effort, by using a new and detailed panel data set that consist of all province and district municipalities’ fiscal data in Turkey between 1997 and 2005. We use fixed effects and dynamic panel data specific GMM estimators to obtain the results. We provide new evidence using an advanced technique which is firstly used to uncover flypaper effect in Turkey. According to our estimations, the flypaper effect does exist for the Turkish municipalities. This result is robust to various model specifications and econometric techniques. Turkish municipalities also experience substitution effect of unconditional grants on the revenue collection efforts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fiscal Federalism, Flypaper Effect, Intergovernmental Transfers, Turkish Municipalities, GMM Estimation

Kaynakça

• Acosta, P., 2010, The “flypaper effect” in presence of spatial interdependence: evidence from Argentinean municipalities: The annals of regional science, v. 44, p. 453-466.
• Allers, M., and W. Vermeulen, 2016, Capitalization of equalizing grants and the flypaper effect: Regional Science and Urban Economics.
• Arellano, M., and S. Bond, 1991, Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations: The review of economic studies, v. 58, p. 277-297.
• Bailey, S. J., and S. Connolly, 1998, The flypaper effect: Identifying areas for further research: Public Choice, v. 95, p. 335-361.
• Becker, E., 1996, The illusion of fiscal illusion: Unsticking the flypaper effect: Public Choice, v. 86, p. 85-102.
• Case, A. C., H. S. Rosen, and J. R. Hines Jr, 1993, Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: Evidence from the states: Journal of public economics, v. 52, p. 285-307.
• Courant, P. N., E. M. Gramlich, and D. L. Rubinfeld, 1978, The stimulative effects of intergovernmental grants: Or why money sticks where it hits, University of Michigan, Institute of Public Policy Studies.
• Cárdenas, O. J., and A. Sharma, 2011, Mexican municipalities and the flypaper effect: Public Budgeting & Finance, v. 31, p. 73-93.
• DOĞAN, M., and A. İ. BAŞ, 2013, BİR FİNANSMAN KAYNAĞI OLARAK BELEDİYELERDE BORÇLANMA: Marmara University Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences, v. 34.
• Duncombe, W., 1996, Public expenditure research: what have we learned?: Public Budgeting & Finance, v. 16, p. 26-58.
• Fisher, R. C., 1982, Income and grant effects on local expenditure: The flypaper effect and other difficulties: Journal of urban economics, v. 12, p. 324-345.
• Gramlich, E. M., H. Galper, S. Goldfeld, and M. McGuire, 1973, State and local fiscal behavior and federal grant policy: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, p. 15-65.
• Holtz-Eakin, D., W. Newey, and H. S. Rosen, 1988, Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data: Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, p. 1371-1395.
• Knight, B., 2002, Endogenous federal grants and crowd-out of state government spending: Theory and evidence from the federal highway aid program: American Economic Review, p. 71-92.
• Niskanen, W. A., 1968, The peculiar economics of bureaucracy: The American Economic Review, p. 293-305.
• Pevcin, P., 2011, Fly-Paper Effect in Slovenian Municipal Finances: Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, v. 11.
• Roodman, D., 2014, xtabond2: Stata module to extend xtabond dynamic panel data estimator: Statistical Software Components.
• Sagbas, I., and N. T. Saruc, 2008, The surge impact of the flypaper, substitution and stimulation effect on local tax effort in Turkey: International research journal of finance and economics, v. 13, p. 42-49.
• Sagbas, I., and N. T. Saruç, 2004, Intergovernmental transfers and the flypaper effect in Turkey: Turkish Studies, v. 5, p. 79-92.
• Schwallie, D. P., 1989, Measuring the effects of federal grants-in-aid on total public sector size: Public Finance Review, v. 17, p. 185- 203.
• Turnbull, G. K., 1998, The overspending and flypaper effects of fiscal illusion: theory and empirical evidence: Journal of Urban Economics, v. 44, p. 1-26.
• Vigneault, M. L., 2005, Intergovernmental fiscal relations and the soft budget constraint problem, Institute of Intergovernmental Relations.
• Worldbank, 2004, Municipal Sector Review, WorldBank.
• Worthington, A. C., and B. E. Dollery, 1999, Fiscal illusion and the Australian local government grants process: How sticky is the flypaper effect?: Public Choice, v. 99, p. 1-13.
• Wyckoff, P. G., 1988, A bureaucratic theory of flypaper effects: Journal of Urban Economics, v. 23, p. 115-129.