EFFECTS OF PRIVATIZATION ON PUBLIC FISCAL BEHAVIOR IN TURKEY

Year 2015, Volume: 33 Issue: 4, 39 - 58, 31.12.2015

Nasip Bolatoğlu , Lütfi Erden

https://doi.org/10.17065/huiibf.79965

Abstract

One of the objectives
of privatization is to establish a well-functioning competitive market by
limiting the role of government only to regulation and supervision. In
addition, the governments experiencing a serious financial distress or aiming
to keep the budget deficits under control perceive privatization as a source of
revenue or financing. Therefore, privatization has important fiscal and
macroeconomic implications. This study investigates the effects of
privatization on the fiscal behavior of governments in Turkey. To this end,
privatization proceeds are incorporated into the framework of a fiscal response
model. Employing the annual data over the periods of 1986-2010 to the empirical
models, we find that privatization proceeds increase tax revenues and reduce
debt burden, benefiting the fiscal position on the whole. This finding can be
taken to interpret that the governments in Turkey tend to respond positively
(wisely) to the proceeds from divestiture regarding their fiscal behavior

Türkiye’de Özelleştirmenin Kamu Mali Davranışları Üzerine Etkileri

Abstract

Özelleştirme ile hedeflenen temel amaçlardan biri, devletin rolünü düzenleyici ve denetleyici olma sınırlarına çekerek serbest piyasa koşullarının tesisi ve işleyişine olanak sağlamaktır. Bununla birlikte özellikle finansman kısıtları olan veya bütçe açıklarını kontrol etmeye çalışan hükümetler, özelleştirmeyi ciddi bir gelir veya finansman kaynağı olarak da görmektedirler. Bu nedenle özelleştirme, mali ve makroiktisadi yansımaları olan bir olgudur. Bu çalışma özelleştirmenin kamu mali davranışları üzerindeki etkilerini Türkiye örneğinde incelemektedir. Bu amaçla özelleştirme gelirleri mali tepki modeli çerçevesinde ele alınmaktadır. Bu modelin çözümü her bir bütçe gelir ve gider kalemi için bir ampirik denklem üreterek, doğrusal olmayan eşanlı denklem sistemi elde edilmesine yol açmaktadır. Bu sistem, 1986-2010 arası yıllık veriler kullanılarak doğrusal olmayan iki aşamalı en küçük kareler yöntemiyle tahmin edilmektedir. Bulgular, özelleştirme gelirlerinin genel olarak borç servisini ve vergi gelirlerini artırdığına işaret etmektedir. Bu durum, Türkiye’de kamunun, özelleştirme gelirlerine bütçe davranışları açısından olumlu (makul) tekpi verdiği anlamında yorumlanabilir.     

Keywords

Özelleştirme, mali tepki modeli

References

• Aziz, J., R. F. Wescott (1997) “Policy Complementarities and the Washington Consensus”, IMF Working Paper, 97/118.
• Barnett, S. (2000) “Evidence on the Fiscal and Macroeconomic Impact of Privatization”, IMF Working Paper, 00/130.
• Boardman, A.E., A.R. Vining (1989) “Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises”, Journal of Law and Economics, 32 (1), 1-33.
• Boubakri, N., J.C. Cosset, O. Guedhami (2005) “Liberalization, corporate governance and the performance of newly privatized firms”, Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 767-790.
• Çoban, O., G. Seçme (2005) “Prediction of socio-economical consequences of privatization at the firm level with fuzzy cognitive mapping”, Information Sciences, 169 (1-2), 131-154.
• Daviddi, R. (1994) “Macroeconomic Stabilization and Privatization in Central and Eastern Europe”, http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/eipascope/Scop94_3_2.pdf, (21.01.2015).
• Davis, J., R. Ossowski, T. Richardson, S. Barnett (2000) “Fiscal and Macroeconomic Impact of Privatization”, IMF Occasional Paper, 194.
• D’Souza, J., W. Megginson (1999) “The financial and operating performance of privatized firms during the 1990s”, Journal of Finance, 54, 1397– 1438.
• EBRD (2011), Transition Report, EBRD.
• Ehrlich, I., G. Gallais-Hamonno, Z. Liu, R. Lutter (1994) “Productivity Growth and Firm Ownership: An Analytical and Empirical Investigation” Journal of Political Economy, 102 (5),1006-1038.
• Feeny, S., M. McGillivray (2003) “Aid and Public Sector Borrowing in Developing Countries”, Journal of International Development, (15), 989-998.
• Filipovic, A. (2005) “Impact of Privatization on Economic Growth”, Issues in Political Economy, Vol. 14.
• Franco-Rodriguez, S. F. (2000) “Policy Arena, Recent Developments in Fiscal Response with an Application to Costa Rica”, Journal of Inernational Development, 12, 429-441.
• Franco-Rodriguez, S. F., O. Morrissey, M. McGillivray (1998) “Aid and Public Sector in Pakistan: Evidence with Endogeneous Aid”, World Development, 26, 1241-1250.
• Galal, A., L. Jones, P. Tandon, I. Vogelsang (1994) Welfare Consequences of Selling Public Enterprises: An Empirical Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Goel, R. K., J. Budak (2006) “Privatization in transition economies: Privatization scale and country size”, Economic Systems, 30 (1), 98–110.
• Gupta, S., C. Schiller, H. Ma (1999) “Privatization, Social Impact and Social Safety Nets”, IMF Working Paper, 99/68.
• Havrylyshyn, O., D. McGettigan (1999) “Privatization in Transition Countries: A Sampling of the Literature”, IMF Working Paper, 99/6.
• Heller, P.S. (1975) “A Model of Public Fiscal Behavior in Developing Countries: Aid, Investment and Taxation”, American Economic Review, 64(3), 429-445.
• Hemming, R., A.M. Mansoor (1988) “Privatization and Public Enterprises”, IMF Occasional Paper, No. 56.
• Jeronimo, V., J. A. Pagan, G. Soydemir (2000) “Privatization and European Economic and Monetary Union”, Eastern Economic Journal, 26 (3), 321-333.
• Katsoulakos, Y., E. Likoyanni (2002) “Fiscal and Other Macroeconomic Effects of Privatization”, SSRN Working Papers, 113.
• Kikeri, S., J. Nellis, M. Shirley (1992) Privatization: The Lessons of Experience, Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Kuştepeli, Y., Y. Gülcan (2003) “Privatization Versus Debt Stock: A Preliminary Analysis On Turkey”, Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 6, 44-52.
• Levac, M., P. Wooldridge (1997) “The Fiscal Impact of Privatization in Canada”, Bank of Canada Review, 25-40.
• Mansoor, A.M. (1988) The fiscal impact of privatisation', in Cook and P. Kirkpatrick, C. (eds.), Privatisation in Less Developed Countries, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books, 180-194.
• Marvatos, G. (2002) “Foreign Aid and Fiscal Response: Does Aid Disaggregation Matter?” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 138 (3), 534-559.
• McGillivray, M. (2009) “Aid, Economic Reform, and Public Sector Fiscal Behavior in Developing Countries”, Review of Development Economics, 13 (3), 526-542.
• McKenzie, G. A. (1998) “The Macroeconomic Impact of Privatization”, IMF Staff Papers, 45, 363-73.
• Megginson, W., J. M. Netter (1999) “From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization”, Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 321-389.
• Okten, C., P. Arin (2006) “The Effects of Privatization on Efficiency: How Does Privatization Work?”, World Development, 34, 1537-56.
• Ouattara, B. (2006a) “Foreign Aid and Government Fiscal Behaviour in Developing Countries: Panel Data Evidence”, Economic Modelling, 23(3), 506-514.
• Ouattara, B. (2006b) “Aid, Debt and Fiscal Policies in Senegal”, Journal of International Development, 18(8), 1105-1122.
• Özelleştirme İdaresi Başkanlığı (2012) Türkiye’de Özelleştirme Raporu, ÖİB.
• Parker, D., C. Kirkpatrick (2005) “Privatization in Developing Countries: A Review of the Evidence and Policy Lessons”, Journal of Developing Studies, 41 (4), 513-541.
• Pinheiro, A. C., B.R. Schneider (1995) “Fiscal Impact of Privatization in Latin America”, Journal of Developing Studies, 31 (5), 751-776.
• Quiggin, J. (1995) “Does Privatization Pay?”, The Australian Economic Review, 28(2), 23-42.