Gelir Dağılımının İyileştirilmesinde Kamu Hizmetlerinin Rolü

Öz

Eğitim, sağlık, barınma, çocuk bakım ve yaşlı bakım gibi kamu hizmetleri hanehalkının harcanabilir gelirini ortalama olarak %29 oranında artırırken aynı zamanda gelir dağılımını da olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. Kamu hizmetlerinin gelir dağılımını iyileştirici etkisi bu hizmetlerin değerinin gelire oranının yoksul hanehalkı için zengin hanehalkına oranla daha yüksek olmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. OECD ülkeleri için bu hizmetlerin değeri en düşük gelirli %20’lik dilimdekilerin gelirini %76 oranında artırırken bu oran en yüksek gelirli %20’lik dilim için %14 dür. Diğer yandan kamu hizmetleri niteliksiz emeğe, kadınlara ve göçmen işçilere göreli olarak daha iyi koşullarda iş olanakları yaratarak da gelir dağılımının iyileşmesine katkı sağlamaktadır. Fakat kamu hizmetlerinin özelleştirilmesi ve piyasalaştırılması, hizmete ulaşımı, hizmetin fiyatını, kalitesini ve kamu istihdamını etkileyerek gelir dağılımını farklı kanallardan olumsuz etkilemektedir. Neticede kamu hizmetlerini sunmanın amacı tüm kullanıcılara en iyi hizmeti vermek yerine müşterilerin ödeme gücüne göre hizmetin kalitesini ayarlamak olmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı kamu hizmetlerinin gelir dağılımına etkisini ve bu hizmetlerin özelleştirilmesinin ve piyasalaştırılmasının eşitlik açısından sonuçlarını tartışmaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu Hizmetleri, Gelir Dağılımı, Piyasalaştırma, Kamu Özel İşbirliği, Eşitsizlik

The Role of the Public Services in Improvement of Income Distribution

Öz

The cash value of public services such as education, health care, social housing, elderly care and childcare increases disposable household income on average by %29 and also tends to reduce inequality. The main reason for the equality enhancing effect of public services is that the cash value of public services accounts for a significantly larger proportion of the income of poor households than of rich households. On average the use of these services accounts for %76 of the income of the poorest quintile of the income scale in the OECD countries as opposed to %14 for the richest income quintile. On the other hand public services also promote equality by providing comparable decent employment opportunities particularly for low skilled workers, women and migrant workers. But privatization and marketization has eroded the equality-enhancing effects of public services through changes in prices, the quality of services and access to services. They have also transformed the public sector employment system. As a result the goal of public service provision is no longer to provide the best possible services for all service users, but to adjust the quality of services to the purchasing power of customers. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the effects of public services on equality and discuss the consequences of privatization and marketization of these services for equality

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Services, Income Distribution, Marketization, Public Private Partnership, Inequality

Kaynakça

1. Ataay, Faruk (2015) “ Neoliberal Reformlar, Devletin Yeniden Yapılandırılması ve Kamu Hizmetinde Dönüşüm” Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, cilt 15, no.30,s.20-39.
2. Altvater, Elmar (2004) “ Comment What Happens When Public Gooods are Privatised?” Studies in Political Economy, v.74, 45-77.
3. Hall, Dave (2014) “Equality and Public Services – Beyond Consumer Spending” PSIRU, University of Greenwich.
4. Hermann, Christoph (2011)”Commodification, Consequences and Alternatives; Lessons From the Privatization of Public Services in Europe” https://www.academia.edu/828214 (19.12.2014)
5. Hermann,Christoph (2014a) “The Public Nature of Public Services” http://www.municipalservicesproject.org/userfiles/hermann_public_nature .pdf (9.6.2015)
6. Hermann, Christoph (2014b) “The Role of the Public Sector in Combating Inequality” International Journal of Labour Research, cilt.6,no.1
7. Hermann, Christoph (2015) “The Public Sector and Equality” Global Social Policy, 1-18.
8. ILO (2012) Global Wage Report, www.ilo.org/global/research/global- reports/global-wage-report/2012/charts/WCMS_193311/lang-- en/index.htm (14.3.2015)

9. Kalkınma Bakanlığı (2016) Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Kamu Özel İşbirliği Uygulamalarına İlişkin Gelişmeler 2015, Ankara.
10. Karahanoğulları, Yiğit (2012) “Kamu Özel Ortaklığı Modelinin Mali Değerlendirmesi” Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, cilt 67, no.2, s.95-125.
11. Konukman, Aziz (2015) “Merkezi Yönetim Bütçesinin İktisadi ve Bütçe Hakkı Açısından Analizi” Karatahta/İşYazıları Dergisi,no.1,s.231-271.
12. Lustig N, C.Pessino and J.Scott (2013) “The Impact of Taxes and Social Spending on Inequality and Poverty in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay: An Overview”. Tulane Economics Working Paper 1312. New Orleans: tulane.edu/RePEc/pdf/tul1313.pdf (17.2.2016) Tulane University. http://econ.
13. Marical, F., M. M. d'Ercole, M. Vaalavuo and G. Verbist (2006) “Publicly-Provided Services and the Distribution of Resources”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, Paris.
14. Marical, F.,M. M. d’Ercole, M.Vaalavuo ve G.Verbist (2008) “Publicly Provided Services and the Distribution of Households Economic Resources” OECD Economic Studies No.44,2008/1
15. Milanovic, Branko (2016) “Inequality: The Structural Aspects” Social Europe https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/02/inequality-structural-aspects/ (20.2.2016)
16. OECD (2008) Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, Paris.
17. OECD (2011) Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising, Paris.
18. OECD (2014) Social Expenditure Update, Paris.
19. OECD (2015) In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All, Paris.
20. PSIRU Briefing for EPSU (2014) “Exposing the Myths Around Public-Private Partnerships” http://www.epsu.org/IMG/pdf/PSIRU_PPP_briefing-_final_.pdf (21.8.2015)
21. Paulus, A.,Sutherland, H. and P. Tsakloglou (2009) “Distributional Effects of In- Kind Public Benefits In European Countries”, http://ftp.iza.org/dp4581.pdf (6.6.2015)
22. Pollock, A., D.Price ve M.Liebe (2011) “Private Finance Initiatives During NHS Austerity”, BMJ, cilt 342, s. 417-419
23. Stockhammer, E.(2013) Why Have Wage Shares Fallen?, ILO Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 35. www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--- travail/documents/publication/wcms_202352.pdf (21.6.2015)
24. Tsakloglou, P., T. Callan,K. Coleman,C. D'Ambrosio, K. de Vos,J.R. Frick,C. Gigliarano,
25. T.Goedemé, M.Grabka, O.Samberg, C.Keane,C.Koutsambelas, S. Lefebure, M.
26. Makovec, K. Mullan,T.Smeeding,H.Sutherland,G. Verbist, F. Zantomio (2009)
27. Distributional Effects of Non-Cash Incomes in Seven European Countries, AIM- AP Report, University of Essex.
28. UNCTAD (2012) Trade and Development Report, Geneva, United Nations.
29. Vaalavua, M.(2011)Towards an Improved Measure of Income Inequality: The Impact of Public Services On Income Distribution- an International Comparison, (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi) http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/18644/2011_VAALAVUO. pdf?sequence=2 (19.6.2015)
30. Verbist, G., M. Förster and M. Vaalavuo (2012) “The Impact of Publicly Provided Services on the Distribution of Resources: Review of New Results and Methods”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 130, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9h363c5szq-en (25.7.2015)