Analysis of Variables Affecting Municipal Borrowing with Quantile Regression in Turkey

Abstract

The present study aimed to determine the variables that affect municipal borrowing in Turkey and analyze them using the quantile regression. In this analysis, municipal debt was analyzed for five quantiles (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th ve 90th), and it was observed that various variables explained the debt in different quantiles. Some variables are significant in all quantiles and could explain the municipal debt, while certain variables were not significant in various quantiles. The findings show that per capita budget expenditure has a significant and positively correlated per capita municipal debt in all five quantiles; expenditure commitment rate in four, and non-interest fiscal capacity rate in the first two quantiles. Per capita tax revenue variable was also significant and negatively correlated with per capita municipal debt in all five borrowing groups. However, population and per capita capital expenditure variables were found insignificant in almost five quantiles. The present study demonstrated that the proposals and policies developed on the municipal debt could have different determinants for municipalities with varying levels of debt.

Keywords

• Municipality
• Borrowing
• Fiscal Determinants
• Quantile Regression
• Turkey

References

1. Acar, Y. (2019). Does Flypaper Effect Exist? New Evidence from Turkish Municipalities. Sosyoekonomi, 27(3955), 68.
2. Akai, N. & Sakata, M. (2002). Fical Decentralization Contributes to Economic Growth: Evidence from State-Level Cross-Section Data for the United States. Journal of Urban Economics, 52(1), 93-108.
3. Arıkboğa, Ü. (2016). Revenue Structure of Municipalities in Turkey: Problems and Solution Proposals. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 13(33), 276-297.
4. Ataay, F. & Güney, A. (2004). Yerelleşme ve Kalkınma Sorunu: Kamu Yönetimi Reformu Üzerine Değerlendirme. Mülkiye Dergisi, 28(243), 131-146.
5. Balaguer-Coll, M. T., Prior, D. & Tortosa-Ausina, E. (2016). On the Determinants of Local Government Debt: Does One Size Fit All? International Public Management Journal, 19(4), 513-542.
6. Bali, B. B. (2006). Mali Desantralizasyon Sürecinde Yerel Yönetimlerin Borçlanması: Bir Teorik Çerçeve Denemesi. (Ed. Ayşe Güner; Serdar Yılmaz), In Mali Yerelleşme: Teori ve Uygulama Üzerine Yazılar, İstanbul: Güncel Publishing: 149-177.
7. Bellot, N. J., Ma, L. Selva, M. & Menendez, L. G. (2017). Determinants of Sub-Central European Government Debt. The Spanish Review of Financial Economics, 15(2), 52-62.
8. Benito, B. & Bastida, F. (2004). The Determinants of the Municipal Debt Policy in Spain. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 16(4), 492-525.

9. Blöchliger, H. & King, D. (2006). Fiscal Autonomy of Sub-Central Governments, OECD WPs on Fiscal Federalism, No. 2: OECD Publishing.
10. Cropf, R. & George, W. (1998). The Determinants of municipal Debt Policy: A Pooled Time-Series Analysis. Environment and Planning Government Policy, 16(2), 211-224.
11. Çebi, C. (2015). Bütçe Harcama Katılığı. Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası Ekonomi Notları, 23, 1-13.
12. Çetinkaya, Ö. (2020). Mahalli İdareler Maliyesi, Bursa: Ekin Publishing.
13. Çetinkaya, Ö. & Demirbaş, T. (2004). Laws Relating to Municipal Borrowing in Turkey, Structure of Loans and Examining of This Structure. Akdeniz IIBF Journal, 3(8), 18-37.
14. Demirbaş, T. (2015). An Examination of Fiscal Rules for Local Government. U.U. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 8(2), 1-32.
15. Ebel, R. & Yılmaz, S. (2002). On the Measurement and Impact of Fiscal Decentralization, Policy Research WP No. 2809: The World Bank.
16. Ehalaiye, D., Botica-Redmayne, N. & Laswad F. (2017). Financial Determinants of Local Government Debt in New Zealand, Pacific Accounting Review, 29(4), 512-533.
17. Eroğlu, E. & Serbes, H. (2018). Fiscal Autonomy of Sub-Central Governments in Turkey. (Ed. M. P. Bolívar; M.D. Subires), In Financial Sustainability and Intergenerational Equity in Local Governments, IGI Global: 83-100.
18. Eroğlu, E. & Tunç, G. (2018). State Re-scaling and Financialisation: An Evaluation of the Financial Activities of Local Governments. Emek Araştırma Dergisi, 9(14), 23-50.
19. Falay, N. (1995). 1980 Sonrasında Yerel Yönetimlerin Finansman Açığı Sorunu ve Türkiye. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 4(5), 13-24.
20. Gül, M. (2009). Türkiye’de Belediyelerin Dış Borçlanması. Sayıştay Dergisi, 74-75, 97-115.
21. Güler, B. A. (1997). Yerel Altyapı Yatırımı ve Finansmanı: İller Bankası: 1945-1995. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 30(1), 43-67.
22. IFS. (2017). Fiscal Rigidities and Their Effects in Ghana, Policy Brief No: 3.
23. IMF. (2013). Turkey Staff Report for the 2013 Article IV Consultation, IMF Country Report No: 13/363.
24. IMF. (2014). Turkey in Transition: Time for a Fiscal Policy Pivot?, Report No: 85104-TR.
25. İlhan, İ. (2013). A Study on the Relationships Between Municipalities and Their Corporations in Procurement in Turkey. Journal of Turkish Court of Accounts, 88, 5-25.
26. Karahanoğulları, O. (1998). Belediye Personelinin Hukuki Yapısına İlişkin Gözlemler. Ankara Hukuk Fakültesi Journal, 47(1-4), 279-318.
27. Koenker, R. & Bassett Jr. G. (1978). Regression Quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46(1), 33-50.
28. Koenker, R. & Hallock, K. F. (2001). Quantile Regression. Journal of Economic Perspective, 15(4), 143-156.
29. Kurtuluş, B. (2006). Türkiye’de Belediyelerin Mali Yapısı ve Harcamalarının Finansmanı, Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı.
30. Letelier S. L. E. (2011). Theory and Evidence of Municipal Borrowing in Chile. Public Choice, 146(3), 395-411.
31. Martinez‐Vazquez, J., Lago‐Peñas, S. & Sacchi A. (2016). The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(4), 1095-1129.
32. Meşe, M. (2011). Belediye Şirketleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Dış Denetim Journal, April-June: 203-215.
33. Miller, G. J. & Hildreth, B. (2007). Local Debt Management. (Ed. Anwar Shah), In Local Public Financial Management, Washington: The World Bank: 109-55.
34. Munoz, E. & Olaberria, E. (2019). Are Budget Rigidities a Source of Fiscal Distress and a Constraint for Fiscal Consolidation? Policy Research WP No. 8957, World Bank Group.
35. Nacar, B. (2005). The Theorical Approaches on the Fiscal Crisis of the Local Governments: Causes, Suggestions and An Assessment. Akdeniz IIBF Journal, 3(9), 202-247.
36. NALAS. (2006). Guidelines on Local Government Borrowing and Recent Developments in NALAS Countries.
37. O’Connor, J. (2009). The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
38. Ökmen, M. & Koç, N. (2015). Borrowing as a Municipal Revenues in Turkey and Suggestions About Debt Reduction. Journal of Management and Economics, 22(2), 551-565.
39. Abuzer, P. (2015). Maliye Politikası: Teori ve Uygulama. Ankara: Turhan Publishing.
40. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Internal Affairs. (2018). 2017 Local Governments General Activity Reports, Ankara.
41. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. (2019). 2018 Local Governments General Activity Report Ankara.
42. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. (2020). 2019 Local Governments General Activity Report, Ankara.
43. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. (2014). Onuncu Kalkınma Planı 2014-2018: Yerel Yönetimler Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu, Ankara.
44. Sağbaş, İ. & Saruç, N. T. (2004). Intergovernmental Transfers and the Flypaper Effect in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 5(2), 79-92.
45. Serbes, H. & Çetinkaya, Ö. (2019). An Analysis of the Structures of Municipal Liabilities Based on the Fiscal Statements in Turkey. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 12(2), 757-800.
46. Swianiewicz, P. (2004). The Theory of Local Borrowing and the West-European Experience: A Report on Central and Eastern Europe. (Ed. Pawel Swianiewicz), In Local Government Borrowing: Risks and Rewards, Budapest: Open Society Institute: 1-23. Şengül, T. (2009). Yerel Devlet Sorunu ve Yerel Devletin Dönüşümünde Yeni Eğilimler. Praksis, 9, 183-220.
47. Tan, X. & Wang, X. (2017). Dependence Changes Between the Carbon Price and Its Fundamentals: A Quantile Regression Approach. Applied Energy, 190, 306–325.
48. Ter-Minassian, T. (2007). Fiscal Rules for Subnational Governments: Can They Promote Fiscal Discipline? OECD Journal on Budgeting, 6(3), 1-11.
49. Tokatlıoğlu, M. &; Selen, U. (2017). Maliye Politikası, Bursa: Ekin Publishing.
50. Ulusoy, A. &; Akdemir, T. (2009). Local Government and Fiscal Autonomy: Comperative Analysis of Turkey and OECD Countries. Balıkesir University the Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 12(21), 259-287.
51. Yalçındağ, S. (1993). Bitmeyen Senfoni: Yerel Yönetimler Reformu. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 26(1), 43-69.
52. Yaş, H. & Akduğan, U. (2015). Analyzing the Financial Transfers Delivered to Municipalities in Turkey within the Scope of Flypaper Effect. Maliye Dergisi, 168, June: 49-68.
53. Yıldırım, Z. (2010). Belediye Hizmetlerinin Finansmanında Borçlanma. (Ed. Figen Altuğ; Özhan Çetinkaya; Selçuk İpek), In Mahalli İdareler Maliyesi Üzerine Yazılar, Bursa: Ekin Publishing: 97-116.
54. Yılmaz, H. H. & Mehmet S. (2011). Bağlı Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çerçevede Türkiye’de Mali Yerelleşme Düzeyi ve Belediyelerde Özgelir Yaratma Kapasitesi Üzerinde Etkisi [Paper presentation]. 4thYerel Yönetimlerin Mali Forumu (26-27 November), Ankara.
55. Municipal Revenues Law. (1981). 2464 Numbered.
56. The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey. (1982). 2709 Numbered.
57. Law on the Regulation of Public Financing and Debt Management. (2002). 4749 Numbered.
58. Metropolitan Municipality Law. (2004). 5216 Numbered. Municipality Law. (2005). 5393 Numbered.