An analysis of the socio-economic determinants of public cultural expenditures in selected oecd countries

Öz

Culture, considered as a society identity, is an important element to improve social unity. Besides, cultural activities and services are common need for individuals. Therefore this kind of services provided by government effects the social welfare positively. Public cultural spending is determined by economic, demographic, social and politic factors. This paper examines the effects of these factors on cultural spending for 9 OECD countries by using annual data over 1990-2009 period. We test stationary features of data using Panel LM (Lagrange Multiplier) unit root test which determines the structural breaks endogenously. Then by employing panel data techniques it was found that cultural spending is negatively correlated with per capita income growth and positively correlated with population growth, young population, unemployment and the measure of left-wing party dominance in the parliament. Furthermore we conclude that demographic factors are much more effective on cultural spending then other factors relatively.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cultural Spending, OECD, LM Unit Root Test with Structural Breaks, Panel Data Analysis.

Seçilmiş OECD ülkelerinde kültürel kamu harcamalarının sosyo-ekonomik belirleyenleri üzerine bir analiz

Öz

Bir toplumun kimliği niteliğindeki kültür toplumsal birliğin geliştirilmesinde önemli bir unsurdur. Ayrıca kültürel faaliyetler ve hizmetler bireylerin ortak bir ihtiyacıdır. Dolayısıyla bu tür hizmetlerin devlet tarafından sunulması toplumsal refahı olumlu yönde etkiler. Devletin yaptığı kültür harcamalarını ekonomik, demografik, sosyal ve politik faktörler belirlemektedir. Çalışmada bu faktörlerin kültürel harcamalar üzerindeki etkisi 9 OECD ülkesinin 1990-2009 yılları arasındaki yıllık verisi ile incelenmiştir. Verinin durağanlığı yapısal kırılmaların içsel olarak belirlendiği Panel LM (Lagrange Multiplier) birim kök testi ile yapılmıştır. Daha sonra panel veri analizi tekniği yapılmış ve kültürel harcamalar ile kişi başına gelir artışı ile negatif; nüfus artış hızı, genç nüfusun payı, işsizlik ve mecliste sol partilerin ağırlığını gösteren değişken ile pozitif ilişkili olduğu bulunmuştur. Bununla birlikte demografik faktörlerin diğer faktörlere göre kültür harcamalarını daha fazla etkilediği sonucu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kültür Harcamaları, OECD, Yapısal Kırılmalı LM Birim Kök Testi, Panel Veri Analizi.

Kaynakça

1. Aktan, C.C. ve Vural, İ.Y. (2003). Gelir dağılımında adaletsizlik ve gelir eşitsizliği. Ankara: Hak-İş Konfederasyonu Yayınları
2. Aysu A. ve Dökmen G. (2011). An investigation on the relationship between government size and unemployment rate: evidence from OECD countries
3. Sosyo Ekonomi Dergisi, (2): 179–190
4. Baltagi, B. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data. Third Edition
5. England: John Wiley and Sons Press
6. Başar, S., Aksu, H., Temurlenk, M. S. ve Polat, Ö. (2009). Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ve büyüme ilişkisi: sınır testi yaklaşımı. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi,13 (1): 301–314
7. Benito B., Vicente C., Bastida F. ve Guiilamon D. (2012). Municipal elections and cultural expenditure authors
8. http://www.feb.ugent.be/accoeco/Papers_Cigar2011/83.%20Municipal%20election s%20and%20cultural%20expenditure.pdf (06.06.2012)

9. Bodo, C. ve Bodo, S. (2011). Country profile www.culturalpolicies.net/web/profiles-download.php (06.06.2012)
10. Italy
11. Chen, J. (2008). A study on cultural tourism and South Korean government. Senior Paper. Wenzao Ursuline College of Langauges Department of International Affairs, South Korea
12. Comperative Political Data Set (2012)
13. http://www.ipw.unibe.ch/content/team/klaus_armingeon/comparative_political_dat a_sets/index_ger.html (12.02.2012)
14. Cusack, T.R. (1997). Partisan politics and public finance: changes in public spending in the industrialized democracies 1955–1989. Public Choice, 91 (3-4): 375-395
15. Çeçen, A. (1985). Kültür yönetimi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 16 (3): 113-126
16. DiMaggio, P. ve Pettit, B
17. (1999). Public opinion and political vulnerability: why has the national endowment for the arts been such an attractive target. Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University
18. DiMaggio, P. and Useem, M. (1978). Cultural democracy in a period of cultural expansion: the social composition of arts audiences in the United States
19. Social Problems, 26 (2): 180-197
20. Duelund, P., Valtysson, B. ve Bohlbro, L. (2012). Country profile Denmark. www.culturalpolicies.net/web/profiles-download.php (06.06.2012)
21. European Parliament (2006). Financing the arts and culture in the European Union. http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/files/134/en/Financing_ the_Arts_and_Culture_in_the_EU.pdf (06.06.2012)
22. Feldmann, H. (2010). Government size an unemployment in developing countries. Applied Economics Letters, (17): 289-292
23. Fisher, R. ve Figueira, C. (2011). Country profile United Kingdom
24. www.culturalpolicies.net/web/profiles-download.php (06.06.2012)
25. Fitzgibbon, M
26. (2011)
27. Country profile www.culturalpolicies.net/web/profiles-download.php (06.06.2012)
28. Ireland
29. Getzner, M. (2002). Determinants of public cultural expenditures: an exploratory time series analysis for Austria. Journal of Cultural Economics, 26 (4): 287–306
30. Getzner, M. (2004). Exploring voter preferences in cultural policy: a case study for Austria. Empirica, 31 (1): 27-42
31. Gökalp, Emre (2011). Kültür: Antropolojik Yaklaşımlar. İçinde A. Ergur ve E. Gökalp (Der.) Kültür Sosyolojisi: 24–51. Eskişehir: T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No:2318
32. Im, K., Lee, J. ve Tieslau, M. (2005). Panel LM unit-root test with level shifts. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67 (3): 393-419
33. Janssens, J., Hesters, D. ve Lebon, F. (2012). Country profile Belgium
34. www.culturalpolicies.net/web/profiles-download.php (06.06.2012)
35. Jenkins, B. (2009). Cultural spending in Ontario, Canada: trends in public and private funding. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15 (3): 329-342
36. Krebs, S. ve Pommerehne, W.W. (1995). Politico-economic interactions of German public performing arts institutions. Journal of Cultural Economics, 19(1): 17–32
37. Lee, C. ve Chang, C. (2007). Mean reversion of inflation rates in 19 OECD countries: evidence from panel LM unit root tests with structural breaks
38. Economics Bulletin, 3(23): 1-15
39. Lee, J., Lee, C. ve Chang, C. (2009). Hysteresis in unemployment reviseted: evidence from panel LM unit root tests with heterogenous structural breaks. Bulletin of Economic Research, 61 (4): 325-334
40. Lewis, G. B. ve Rushton, M. (2007). Understanding state spending on the arts: 1976–1999. State and Local Government Review, 39(2): 107–114
41. Mangset, P. ve Kleppe, B. (2011). Country profile www.culturalpolicies.net/web/profiles-download.php (06.06.2012)
42. Norway
43. Mitchell, R. ve Heiskanen, I. (2011). Country profile Finland
44. www.culturalpolicies.net/web/profiles-download.php (06.06.2012)
45. Narayan, P. K. ve Prasad, B.C. (2005). The validity of purchasing power parity fo eleven middle eastern countries. Review of Middle East Economics and Finance, 3 (2): 135-149
46. Nogare, C.D. ve Galizzi, M. M. (2011). The political economy of cultural spending: evidence from Italian cities. Journal of Cultural Economics, 35(3): 203- 231
47. Noonan, D. S. (2007). Fiscal pressures, institutional context, and constituents: a dynamic model of states’ arts agency appropriations. Journal of Cultural Economics, 31 (4): 293–310
48. OECD, Government expenditure by functions (COFOG)
49. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE11 (10.02.2012)
50. OECD (2008). National accounts of OECD countries volume I: main aggregates 1995-2006. Paris: OECD Publishing
51. Pazarlıoğlu, V. ve Gürler, Ö.K. (2007). Telekomünikasyon yatırımları ve ekonomik büyüme: panel veri yaklaşımı. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 44 (508): 35-43
52. Potrafke, N. (2011). Public expenditures on education and cultural affairs in the West German states: does government ideology influence the budget composition?. German Economic Review, 12 (1): 124–145
53. Ridge, M.; Flaherty, D.; Caldwell-Nichols, A.; Bradley, R. ve Howell, C
54. (2007). A framework for evaluating cultural policy investment
55. http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/research/Aframeworkforevaluatingculturalpolic yinvestmentnontechnicalsummary.pdf (18.03.2012)
56. Rosenauer, A. ve Winther, P. (2002). Cultural policies in the EU member states. European Parliament Directorate-General for Research Working Paper, EDUC 107A EN
57. Rushton, M. (2005). Support for earmarked public spending on culture: evidence from a referendum in Metropolitan Detroit. Public Budgeting and Finance, 25(4): 72–85
58. Said, E. S. ve Dickey, D. A. (1984). Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika, 71(3): 509- 607
59. Sakınç, S. ve Cura, S. (2012). Mali Sosyalleşme ve Kültür İlişkisi. İçinde K. Çelebi (Der.) Mali Sosyoloji Üzerine Denemeler: 33-59. Ankara: T.C. Maliye Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı, Yayın No: 2012/418
60. Schlafly, P. (2008). How the government influences our culture
61. Northwestern University Law Review, 102 (1): 491-494
62. Schulze, G. G. ve Rose, A. (1998). Public orchestra funding in Germany: an empirical investigation. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22(3): 227–247
63. Schulze, G. G. ve Ursprung, H. W. (2000). La Donna e` mobile—or is she? voter preferences and public support for the performing arts. Public Choice, 102 (1-2): 129–147
64. Stastna, L. (2009). Spatial interdependence of local public expenditures: selected evidence from the Czech Republic. Czech Economic Review, 3 (1): 7–25
65. Throsby, C.D. and Withers, G.A. (1986). Strategic bias and demand for public goods: theory and an application to the arts. Journal of Public Economics, 31(3): 307-327
66. Wang, S. ve Burton, A.A. (2007). The effect of government size on the steady state unemployment rate: a structural error correction model. University of Delaware Working Paper, Working Paper no. 2007-14
67. WDI, (10.02.2012)
68. World data bank
69. http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do Werck, K., Heyndels, B., ve Geys, B. (2008). The impact of ‘‘central places’’ on spatial spending patterns: evidence from Flemish local governments cultural expenditures. Journal of Cultural Economics, 32 (1): 35–58
70. Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Introductory economics. Boston: South-Western College Publishing