MALİ ÖZERKLİK VE MALİ TEVZİN AÇISINDAN YEREL YÖNETİM VERGİ GELİRLERİNİN KİŞİ BAŞI GELİR VE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME İLE KARŞILIKLI NEDENSELLİK İLİŞKİSİ: SEÇİLMİŞ OECD ÜYESİ ÜLKELERDE MALİ YERELLEŞME ÜZERİNE BAZI ÇIKARIMLAR

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 20, 1 - 28, 29.05.2019

Selçuk Çağrı Esener

https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu
çalışma, mali desantralizasyon ve iktisadi büyüme arasında herhangi bir
nedensellik ilişkisinin olup olmadığını ve eğer varsa bunun yönünü incelemeyi
amaçlamaktadır. Bilinen teorik ve ampirik literatür mali yerelleşme
süreçlerinin bir şekilde ekonomik performansı olumlu etkileyeceğini varsaysa
dahi ekonomik büyüme değerlerinin mali yerelleşme faaliyetlerini
destekleyebileceğini göz ardı etmiştir. İlgi alanı, yöntemi ve örneklemleri
itibariyle farklı olmayı amaçlayan bu çalışmada, geniş bir teorik altyapı
araştırması sonrasında 18 ülkenin 1991-2015 yılları arasındaki çeyrek asırlık
dönemine ait veri setiyle Bootstrap Panel Granger Nedensellik sınaması
gerçekleştirmiştir. Bulgular, her iki değişkenin de farklı ülkeler için
birbirinin nedeni olabildiğini göstermektedir. Sonuçlara göre, Kanada, Fransa
ve Japonya’da desantralizasyon GSYİH değişkenlerini etkilerken Macaristan,
Polonya ve Avustralya’da ise bunun tersi bir durum söz konusudur. Öte yandan,
çalışmada, iki değişkenin birbirini anlamlı düzeyde etkilemediği tespit edilen
(Türkiye dâhil) ülkelere dair de maliye politikası özelinde birtakım
çıkarsamalar yer almaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Desantralizasyon, Mali Tevzin, Yerel Vergiler, Ekonomik Büyüme, Panel Veri Analizi, Nedensellik

A TWO-WAY CAUSALITY BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAX REVENUE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH VARIABLES ON THE BASIS OF FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION AND FISCAL EQUALIZATION: SOME FISCAL AUTONOMY ANALYSES FOR THE SELECTED OECD COUNTRIES

Öz

This study examines the existence and
direction of the panel causality between different fiscal decentralization and
economic growth variables. The well-known theoretical and empirical literature
has assumed that the fiscal decentralization process somehow causes economic
growth, but has mostly ignored the possibility of economic growth can cause and
change the decentralization levels as well. With its different point of
interest, methodology and samples; the study applies the Bootstrap Panel
Granger Causality Test to the data from 18 countries between 1991–2015 and
finds that both fiscal decentralization and economic growth causes each other
in different countries with relatively significant levels. According to the
results, the tested variables of fiscal decentralization cause GDP and GDP per
capita growth in Canada, France and Japan while in Hungary, Poland and
Australia ‘vice versa’ effect happens. Further to that, some fiscal policy
assessments are also done as a conclusion for the countries (like Turkey) which
fiscal decentralization has no or less effect in either way.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Decentralization, Fiscal Equalization, Local Taxes, Economic Growth, Panel Data Analysis, Causality

Kaynakça

• AKAI, N. & SAKATA, M. (2002). Fiscal decentralization contributes to economic growth: Evidence from state level cross-section data for the Unites States, Journal of Urban Economics, 52(1): 93-108.
• AKAI, N., HOSOI, M. & NISHIMURA, Y. (2009). Fiscal decentralization and economic volatility: Evidence from state level cross‐section data of the USA, Japanese Economic Review, 60(2), 223-235.
• ARELLANO, M. (2003). Panel Data Econometrics, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003.
• ARNSTEIN, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
• ASATRYAN, Z. & FELD, L.P. (2015). Revisiting the link between growth and federalism: A Bayesian model averaging approach, Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(3),772-781.
• ATIYAS, İ., & SAYIN, Ş. (1997). Siyasi Sorumluluk, Yönetsel Sorumluluk ve Bütçe Sistemi: Bir Yeniden Yapılanma Önerisine Doğru, TESEV Yayınları, İstanbul.
• BALTAGI, B.H. (2001). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 2001.
• BASKARAN, T. & FELD, L.P. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in OECD countries is there a relationship?, Public Finance Rev., 41(4), 421-445.
• BODMAN, P. (2011). Fiscal decentralisation and economic growth in the OECD, Journal of Applied Economics, vol. 43, 3021-3035.
• BRENNAN, D. & BUCHANAN, J.M. (1980). The Power to Tax: Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• BREUSCH, T. & PAGAN, A. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Application to Model Specifications in Econometrics, Reviews of Economics Studies, Vol: 47, 239-253.
• BREITUNG, J. (2005). A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data, Econometric Reviews, 24, 151-173.
• BUCHANAN, J. (1975). The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
• BUSER, W. (2011). The impact of fiscal decentralization on economics performance in high-income OECD nations: an institutional approach, Public Choice, 149(1-2), 31-48.
• CASTLES, F. G. (1999). Decentralization and the post-war political economy, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 36, 27-53.
• CHU, H.P., CHANG, T. & SAGAFI-NEJAD, T. (2016). Globalization and Economic Growth Revisited: A Bootstrap Panel Causality Test. Contemporary Economic and Management Studies in Asia and Africa, Cyrus Chronicle Journal, May 2016, 1(1): 30-44.
• DAVOODI, H. & ZOU, H. (1998). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: a cross-country study, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 43, 244-257.
• DESAI, R.M., FREINKMAN, L. & GOLDBERG, I. (2005). Fiscal federalism in rentier regions: evidence from Russia, J. Comp. Econ., 33(4), 814-834.
• Dünya Bankası (2018). http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators
• EBEL, R. D. & YILMAZ, S. (2002). On the measurement and impact of fiscal decentralization, World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper, no. 2809.
• EMİL, F. & YILMAZ, H.H. (2005). Avrupa Birliği Türkiye Arasında Yerel Yönetimlerin Finansman ve Mali Yönetim Uyumlaştırılması, 20. Türkiye Maliye Sempozyumu: Türkiye’de Yeniden Mali Yapılanma, Pamukkale Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Maliye Bölümü, Karahayıt-Pamukkale, 258-273.
• ENIKOLOPOV, R. & ZHURAVSKAYA, E. (2007). Decentralization and political institutions, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 91, 2261-2290.
• ESENER, S.Ç. (2018). Devletin Mali İnovasyonu Açısından Saydamlık, Hesap Verilebilirlik, Katılımcılık ve Sosyal Medya, Sosyal Medyanın İş Yaşamındaki Yeri içerisinde: H. Yıldız (Ed.), 10. Bölüm, Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş., İstanbul, Nisan 2018, 203-233.
• ESENER, S.Ç. & İPEK, E. (2018). The Impacts of Public Expenditure, Government Stability and Corruption on Per Capita Growth: An Empirical Investigation on Developing Countries, Sosyoekonomi, Vol. 26(36), 11-32.
• EZCURRA, R. & RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. (2013). Political decentralization, economic growth and regional disparities in the OECD, Reg. Stud., 47(3), 388-401.
• FALAY, N. (2011). Yönetimlerarası Mali İlişkiler ve Hizmetlerin Optimal Yerelleşmesi, Prof. Dr. Sadık Kırbaş’a Armağan Kitabı içerisinde: M. Koçak ve S. Teker (Ed.), Okan Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, Eylül 2011, 86-92.
• FELD, L., KIRCHGASSNER G. & SCHALTEGGER, C. (2003). Decentralised Taxation and the Size of Government: Evidence from Swiss State and Local Governments, CESifo Working Paper Series, no. 1087.
• FIVA, J. (2006). New Evidence on the Effect of Fiscal Decentralization on the Size and Composition of Government Spending, FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, 62 (2): 250-280.
• FILIPPETTI, A. & SACCHI, A. (2016). Decentralization and economic growth reconsidered: The role of regional authority, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(8), 1793-1824.
• GARMAN, C., HAGGARD, S. & WILLIS, E. (2001). Fiscal decentralization: A political theory with Latin American cases, World Politics, 53(2): 205-236.
• GEMMELL, N., KNELLER, R. & SANZ, I. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: spending versus revenue decentralization, Econ. Inq., 51(4), 1915-1931.
• GRANGER, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods, Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438.
• GRANGER, C. W. J. (2003). Some aspects of causal relationships, Journal of Econometrics, 112, 69-71.
• GREENE, W.H. (2003). Econometric Analysis, Prentice Hall, London, 5th Edition, 2003.
• GROSSMAN, P. (1989). Fiscal Decentralization and Government Size: An Extension, Public Choice, 62, 63-69.
• GROSSMAN, P. & WEST, E. (1994). Federalism and the Growth of Government Revisited, Public Choice, 79, 19-32.
• GÜLER, B.A. (2000). Yerel Yönetimleri Güçlendirmek mi? Ademi Merkeziyetçilik mi?, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, TODAİE Yayınları, Cilt 9, Sayı 2, Nisan 2000, 14-29.
• HACKER, R.S. & HATEMI-J, A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: theory and application, Applied Economics, 38(13), 1489-1500.
• HOBBES, T. (1839). Leviathan, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, yay. William Molesworth, c. 3 içinde, Londra.
• HOOGHE, L, MARKS, G. & SCHAKEL, A.H. (2010). The Rise of Regional Authority: A Comparative Study of 43 Democracies, London: Routledge.
• HEALD, D. (2012). Why is Transparency About Public Expenditure So Elusive?, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 30-49.
• HURLIN, C. (2008). Testing for Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels, Mimeo. Department of Economics: University of Orleans.
• HUSSAIN, Y. (2014). Social Media as a Tool for Transparency and Good Governance in the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan, Crossroads Asia W.P. Series, No. 22.
• IIMI, A. (2005). Decentralization and economic growth revisited: an empirical note, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 57(3), 449-461.
• KAR, M., NAZLIOĞLU, Ş. & AĞIR, H. (2011). Financial Development and Economic Growth Nexus in the MENA Countries: Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis, Economic Modelling, 28(1-2): 685-693.
• KÓNYA, L. (2006). Exports and Growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach, Economic Modelling, vol. 23(6): 978-992.
• KWOON, I. (2011). Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth: A Test for Granger Causality, The Korean Journal of Policy Studies, vol. 26(3), 161-177.
• LIGTHART, J.E. & VAN OUDHEUSEN, P. (2017). The Fiscal Decentralisation and Economic Growth Nexus Revisited, Fiscal Studies, vol. 38(1), 141-171.
• MARLOW, M.L. (1988). Fiscal Decentralization and Government Size, Public Choice, 56, 259-269.
• MARTİNEZ-VAZQUEZ, J., LAGO-PENAS, S. & SACCHI, A. (2017). The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey, Journal of Economic Surveys, vol. 31(4), 1095-1129.
• MARTINEZ-VAZQUEZ, J. & McNAB, R. M. (2006). Fiscal decentralization, macro stability and growth, Hacienda Publica Espanola, vol. 179, 25-49.
• MENYAH, K., NAZLIOĞLU, S. & WOLDE-RUFAEL, Y. (2014). Financial Development, Trade Openness and Economic Growth in African Countries: New Insights from a Panel Causality Approach, Economic Modelling, 37: 386-394.
• MORGAN, K. (2006). Devolution and development: Territorial justice and the North-South divide, J. Fed., 36, 189-206.
• MORGAN, K. (2007). The polycentric state: New spaces of empowerment and engagement?, Reg. Stud., 41, 1237-1251.
• MOZOROV, B. (2017). Decentralization and Economic Growth: Specification, Measurement, and Direction of Causal Relationship, International Journal of Public Administration, 1-16.
• MUSGRAVE, R.A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy, McGraw-Hill, New York.
• NADAROĞLU, H. (2001). Mahalli İdareler, Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş., 7. Baskı, İstanbul, Ekim 2001.
• NAZLIOĞLU, Ş., LEBE, F. & KAYHAN, S. (2011). Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in OECD countries: Cross-sectionally dependent heterogeneous panel causality analysis, Energy Policy, 39(10), 6615-6621.
• NELSON, M. (1987). Searching for Leviathan: Comment and Extension, American Economic Review, 77, 198-204.
• NGUYEN, L.P. & ANWAR, S. (2011). Fiscal decentralisation and economic growth in Vietnam, J. Asia P. Econ., 16(1), 3-14.
• OATES, W.E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
• OATES, W.E. (1985). Searching for Leviathan: An Empirical Study, American Economic Review, 75, 748-757.
• OATES, W.E. (1989). Searching for Leviathan: A Reply and Some Further Reflexions, American Eco. Review, 79, 578-583.
• OECD (2018). http://www.oecd.org/tax/federalism/fiscal-decentralisation-database.htm
• PESARAN, M.H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels, CESifo WP, 1229, IZA Discussion Paper, 1240.
• PESARAN, M.H. & YAMAGATA, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels, Journal of Econometrics, Vol: 142(1), 50-93.
• PESARAN, M.H., ULLAH, A. & YAMAGATA, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-section Independence, Econometrics Journal, Vol: 11 (1), 105-127.
• PRUD’HOMME, R. (1995). The dangers of decentralization, World Bank Res. Obs., 10, 201-220.
• QIAO, Y., MARTINEZ-VAZQUEZ, J. & XU, J. (2008). The trade-off between growth and equity in decentralization policy: China’s experience, Journal of Development Economics, 86(1): 112-128.
• RODDEN, J. (2003). Reviving Leviathan: Fiscal Federalism and the Growth of Government, International Organization, 57 (4), 695-729.
• RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. & EZCURRA, R. (2011). Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries, J. Econ. Geogr., 11(4), 619-643.
• RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. & KROIJER, A. (2009). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in central and eastern Europe, Growth and Change, vol. 40, 387-417.
• STANSEL, D. (2005). Local Decentralization and Local Economic Growth: A Cross-Sectional Examination of US Metropolitan Areas, Journal of Urban Economics, 57(1), 55-72.
• STEGARESCU, D. (2005). Public Sector Decentralisation: Measurement Concepts and Recent International Trends, Fiscal Studies, 26(3), 301-333.
• STEIN, E. (1999). Fiscal Decentralisation and Government Size in Latin America, Journal of Applied Economics, 2 (2), 357-391.
• SWAMY, P.A.V.B. (1970). Efficient Inference in a Random Coefficient Regression Model, Econometrica, 38 (2), 311-323.
• ŞEN H., KAYA, A. & ALPASLAN, B. (2018). Education, Health, and Economic Growth Nexus: A Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis for Developing Countries, Sosyoekonomi, Vol. 26(36), 125-144.
• THIESSEN, U. (2000). Fiscal federalism in Western European and selected other Countries: Centralization or decentralization? What is better for economic growth?, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschanftsforschung DP, No. 224.
• THIESSEN, U. (2003). Fiscal decentralisation and economic growth in high-income OECD countries, Fiscal Studies, vol. 24, 237-274.
• THORNTON, J. (2007). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth reconsidered, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 61(1), 64-70.
• TIEBOUT, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures, J. Polit. Econ., 64, 416-424.
• TOSUN, U. (2007). Türkiye'de Kamu Sektöründe Yeni Yönetim Felsefesi: Kaynak Kullanımında Etkinlik Açısından Bir Değerlendirme, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 19, Aralık 2007, 75-94.
• UNDP (1997). Governance for Sustainable Human Development, UNDP Policy Document, New York.
• WOLLER, G. M. & PHILLIPS, K. (1998). Fiscal decentralisation and LDC economic growth: an empirical investigation, Journal of Development Studies, vol. 34, 139-48.
• XIE, D., ZOU, H. & DAVOODI, H. (1999). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in the United States, Journal of Urban Economics, 45(2): 228-239.
• YANG, D.L. (1997). Beyond Beijing: Liberalization and the regions in China, Routledge, London.
• YEUNG, R. (2009). The Effects of Fiscal Decentralization on the Size of Government: A Meta-Analysis, Public Budgeting & Finance, 29 (4), 1-23.
• YILMAZ, H.H., & BİÇER, M. (2010). Parlamentonun Bütçe Hakkının Etkin Kullanımının Yeni Bütçe Sistemi Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi, Maliye Dergisi, Sayı 158, Ocak-Haziran 2010, 201-225.
• YOUNG, A. (2000). The Razor’s Edge: Distortions and incremental reform in the People’s Republic of China, NBER Working Paper, No. 7828.
• ZELLNER, A. (1962). An efficiency method of estimating seemingly unrelated regression equations and tests for aggregation bias, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 348-368.
• ZHANG, T. & ZOU, H. (1998). Fiscal decentralization, public spending, and economic growth in China, Journal of Public Economics, 67(2): 221-240.