YEREL KAMUSAL MALLARA YÖNELİK BİREYSEL TALEPLERİ ETKİLEYEN EKONOMİK RASYOLAR: SOSYO-EKONOMİK VE SOSYO-DEMOGRAFİK ÖZELLİKLER

Öz

Yerel yönetimlerin şehirlere, bölgelere ve köylere kamu hizmetlerinin sağlanmasındaki rolü,sübsidarity kavramının işaret ettiği üzere vatandaşların ilk etkileşim noktası oldukları için hayati önem taşımaktadır. Vatandaşları doğrudan etkileyen ve doğrudan ulaşan bu pozisyonlar nedeniyle, sadece mal ve hizmet sağlayıcıları olarak değerlendirilmemekle kalmaz, aynı zamanda vatandaşların sosyal algılarını değerlendiren kurumlar olarak da değerlendirilirler. Vatandaşların mal ve hizmet sunumu hakkındaki algıları, bu mal ve hizmetlerin niceliğini ve kalitesini belirlemek açısından önemlidir. Bireylerin memnun oldukları mallardan daha fazlasını ya da memnun olmayan malları tüketmek isteyecekleri temel faydacı anlayışa dayanarak, bu çalışmanın konusu bireysel memnuniyet temelli bir mal-hizmet talep analizidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı ise Türkiye'de vatandaş memnuniyeti açısından yerel kamusal mal ve hizmetlerinden memnuniyetin sosyodemografik ve sosyo-ekonomik profillerini ortaya koymaktır.Bu sebeple, multinomiyal lojistik regresyon ve ki-kare testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgulara göre, genel yaşam memnuniyeti, gelir düzeyi memnuniyeti ve gelecekten beklentileri yüksek olan kişiler ile şehirlerde yaşayan bireylerin Türkiye’deki belediye hizmetlerinden memnuniyeti yüksektir. Ayrıca kadınlar erkeklere göre, bekarlarda evil bireylere göre yerel kamusal mal ve hizmetlerlerden daha az memnuniyet sergilemektedirler. Ayrıca belediye hizmetlerinden memnuniyet ile eğitim arasında da ters bir ilişki görülmüştür; ki bu eğitim seviyesi yükseldikçe memnuniyetsizliğin arttığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yaşam memnuniyeti,yerel yönetimler,belediyeler,yerel kamusal mallar,tercih açıklatma

ECONOMIC RATIONALS AFFECTING INDIVIDUAL DEMANDS FOR LOCAL PUBLIC GOODS: SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Öz

The role of the local governments in the provision of public services to cities, districts and villages is vital since they are the first point of interaction of citizens, as pointed out by the subsidiarity. Due to these positions that directly affect and directly reach citizens, they are not only evaluated as providers of goods and services, but are also considered as institutions that evaluate the social perceptions of citizens. Citizens' perceptions about the delivery of goods and services are important in terms of determining the quantity and quality of these goods and services. Based on the fundamental utilitarian understanding that individuals will want to consume more than the goods they are satisfied with, or less to consume goods that are not satisfied, the subject of this study is an individual satisfaction-based goods-service demand analysis. The aim of this paper is to reveal the socio-demographic and socio-economic profiles of satisfaction for local public goods and services in terms of citizen satisfaction in Turkey. In this paper, multinomial logistic regression and chi-square test are employed. According to the findings, satisfaction level of municipality service in Turkey increases when overall life satisfaction, income level satisfaction, expectations from future and living in cities are increases. Moreover, females and singles are more likely dissatisfied with overall local public services. Also, education and satisfaction from municipal services have an inverse relationship; which shows that as the level of education increases, dissatisfaction increases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• life satisfaction,local government,municipalities,local public services,stated preference

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 5-17.
2. Clarke, E. H. (1971). Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11(1), 17-33.
3. Due, J.F. Friedlaender A.F. (1973). Government Finance: Economics of the Public Sector, UK: Irwin Inc.
4. Duffy, B. (2000). Satisfaction and Expectations: Attitudes to public services in deprived areas, London School of Economics Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE Paper No. 45).
5. Frey, B. S., Luechinger, S., & A. Stutzer (2004). Valuing public goods: the life satisfaction approach, Institute Center for Economic Studies Munich (Working paper 1158).
6. Graham, C. & Lora E. (Eds) (2010). Paradox and Perception: Measuring quality of life in Latin America. Washington DC: Brooking Institution Press.
7. Gümüş-Özuyar (2017). Türkiye’de Adalet Hizmetleri Talebinin Belirleyicileri: Yaşam Memnuniyeti Yöntemi İle Bir Uygulama 2004-2012. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
8. Harris, L.C., Fisk, R.P., & Sysalova, H. (2016). Exposing Pinocchio customers: investigating exaggerated service stories. Journal of Service Management, 27(2), 63-90.

9. James, O. (2009). Evaluating the Expectations Disconfirmation and Expectations Anchoring Approaches to Citizen Satisfaction with Local Public Services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 107-123.
10. Layard, R., & O’Donnell, G. (2015). How to make policy when happiness is the goal. World Happiness Report (Eds. J. Helliwell, R. Layard &J. Sachs). New York: UN, 77-81.
11. Levi, M. (1998). A State of Trust. Trust and Governance (Eds. M. Levi & V. Braithwaite), New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 77-101.
12. Li, H. (2008). Satisfaction with Local “Public Goods” and Services: The Effects of Household Income and Privatization in Southern California. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Faculty of the Graduate School University of South California, USA.
13. Martinez, L., Short, J., & Otiz, M. (2015). Citizen satisfaction with public goods and government services in the global urban south: A case study of Cali, Colombia. Habitat International, 49(2), 84-91.
14. Miller, T.I & Miller, M (1991). Citizen Surveys: How to do them, How to use them, what they mean, Washington DC: International City/Country Management Association.
15. Morgenson, F.V. (2012). Expectations, Disconfirmation, and Citizen Satisfaction with the US Federal Government: Testing and Expanding the Model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 289-305.
16. Oliver, R. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.
17. Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387-389.
18. Schläpfer, F. (2015). Stated preferences for public services: A classification and survey of approaches. Journal of Economic Surveys. Early view, DOI: 10.1111/joes.12140
19. Stiglitz, J. (2000). Economics of Public Sector, New York: W. Norton &Company.
20. Stipak, B. (1979). Citizen Satisfaction with Urban Services: Potential Misuse as a Performance Indicator. Public Administration Review, 39(1), 46-52.
21. Stipak, B. (1980). Local Governments' Use of Citizen Surveys. Public Administration Review, 40(5), 521-525.
22. Trogen, C.P. (2005). Public Goods Theory of Public Goods. Handbook of Public Sector Economics (Ed D. Robbins), Florida: Taylor & Francis Group, 169-232.
23. Van de Walle, S. & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public Service performance and Trust in Government: The Problem of Causality. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 8(9), 891-913.
24. Van de Walle, S. (2018). Explaining Citizen Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Public Services. The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (Eds. E. Ongaro & S. Van Thiel), London: Palgrave Macmillan, 227-24.
25. Van Praag, B. M. S. & Ferrer-i-Carbonell A. (2008). Happiness Quantified: A Satisfaction Calculus Approach. Oxford: UK. Revised & Paperback edition: Oxford University Press
26. Van Ryzin, G. (2004). The Measurement of Overall Citizen Satisfaction. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(3), 9-28.
27. Welsch, H. (2003). Environment and Happiness: Valuation of air pollution in ten European countries. German Institute for Economic Research (Discussion Paper 356), Berlin.