Year 2019, Volume 11, Issue 20, Pages 1 - 28 2019-05-29

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
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

Selçuk Çağrı Esener [1]

27 36

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.

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.

  • 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.
Primary Language tr
Subjects Economics
Journal Section RESEARCH PAPERS
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0002-5722-9549
Author: Selçuk Çağrı Esener (Primary Author)
Institution: Bandırma Onyedi Eylül Üniversitesi
Country: Turkey


Bibtex @research article { kilisiibfakademik464702, journal = {Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD)}, issn = {1309-3762}, eissn = {2149-1585}, address = {Kilis 7 Aralik University}, year = {2019}, volume = {11}, pages = {1 - 28}, doi = {10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702}, title = {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}, key = {cite}, author = {Esener, Selçuk Çağrı} }
APA Esener, S . (2019). 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. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 11 (20), 1-28. DOI: 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702
MLA Esener, S . "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". Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 11 (2019): 1-28 <http://dergipark.org.tr/kilisiibfakademik/issue/45504/464702>
Chicago Esener, S . "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". Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 11 (2019): 1-28
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - 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 AU - Selçuk Çağrı Esener Y1 - 2019 PY - 2019 N1 - doi: 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702 DO - 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702 T2 - Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 1 EP - 28 VL - 11 IS - 20 SN - 1309-3762-2149-1585 M3 - doi: 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702 UR - https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 Journal of Academic Researches and Studies 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 %A Selçuk Çağrı Esener %T 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 %D 2019 %J Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) %P 1309-3762-2149-1585 %V 11 %N 20 %R doi: 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702 %U 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702
ISNAD Esener, Selçuk Çağrı . "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". Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 11 / 20 (May 2019): 1-28. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.464702