TÜRKİYE'DE MALİ YERELLEŞMENİN BÖLGESEL GELİR EŞİTSİZLİĞİ VE YOKSULLUK ÜZERİNE ETKİLERİ

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 3, 527 - 560, 29.09.2023

Asuman Çukur

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1321112

Öz

Literatürde gelirin yeniden dağılımına ilişkin politikaları merkezi yönetimin mi yoksa yerel yönetimin mi daha etkin uygulayacağına dair tartışmalar sürerken bu kapsamda mali yerelleşmenin gelir eşitsizliği ve yoksulluğa etkilerinin özellikle son dönemde sıklıkla araştırılan bir konu olduğu görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’de mali yerelleşmenin gelir eşitsizliği ve yoksulluğa etkileri 2014-2020 yılları için 26 alt bölgeye ait veriler kullanılarak literatüre dayalı 6 farklı modelle panel veri analiz yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Mali yerelleşmenin harcama ve gelir yerelleşmesinin yanı sıra yerel mali özerklik göstergeleriyle de ölçüldüğü bu araştırmanın sonuçları gelir yerelleşmesinin gelir eşitsizliğini azalttığına dair güçlü kanıtlar bulurken mali yerelleşmenin bölgesel yoksulluğa etkilerine dair zayıf kanıtlar bulmuştur. Sonuçlar ülkemizde hem harcama hem de gelir yerelleşmesinin refah etkileri açısından tekrar gözden geçirilmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mali Yerelleşme, Gelir Eşitsizliği, Yoksulluk

Destekleyen Kurum

YOK

Proje Numarası

YOK

Teşekkür

YOK

THE IMPACT OF FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION ON REGIONAL INCOME INEQUALITY AND POVERTY IN TURKEY

Öz

There are ongoing debates in the literature on whether central or the local governments will implement income redistribution policies more effectively, and in this direction the impact of fiscal decentralization on income inequality and poverty have been frequently researched especially in the recent period.. In this study, the impact of fiscal decentralization on income inequality and poverty in Turkey are analyzed using panel data methods based on six different models with regional data from 26 sub-regions for the years 2014-2020. The empirical results of this study, where fiscal decentralization is measured by expenditure and revenue decentralization as well as local fiscal autonomy indicators, find strong evidence that revenue decentralization reduces income inequality but weak evidence on the impact of fiscal decentralization on regional poverty. The results suggest that both expenditure and revenue decentralization in Turkey should be re-evaluated in terms of their welfare effects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fiscal Decentralization, Income Inequality, Poverty

Proje Numarası

YOK

Kaynakça

• Agyemang-Duah, W., Kafui Gbedoho, E., Peprah, P., Arthur, F., Kweku Sobeng., A., Okyere, J. & Mengba Dokbila, J. (2018). Reducing poverty through fiscal decentralization in Ghana and beyond: A review. Cogent Economics & Finance, 6(1), 1-14.
• Akai, N. & Sakata, M. (2005). Fiscal decentralization, commitment and regional inequality: Evidence from statelevel cross-sectional data for the United States (No. CIRJE-F-315). CIRJE. Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo.
• Akdemir, T. & Karakurt, B. (2020), Revenue decentralization and the soft budget constraint problem in intergovernmental fiscal relations: The case of Turkey. Akdemir, T. & Kıral, H. (Ed.), Public Financial Management Reforms in Turkey: Progress and Challenges, Volume 2, (121-147), Singapore: Springer.
• Ashfahany, A. E., Djuuna, R. F. & Rofiq, N. F. (2020). Does fiscal decentralization increases regional income inequality in Indonesia? Jambura Equilibrium Journal, 68-80.
• Arellano, M. (1993). On the testing of correlated effects with panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 59(1- 2), 87-97
• Arıkboğa, Ü. (2022). Belediyelerde sosyal harcamalar: Üsküdar ve Kadıköy belediyesi örnekleri. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler Dergisi, 31(4), 5-34.
• Arıkboğa, Ü. (2015). Türkiye’de büyükşehir belediyesi transfer sistemi ve 6360 sayılı kanunun etkileri. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 37(2), 1-29.
• Bahl R. (1999). Fiscal decentralization as development policy. Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(2), 59-75. Bahl, R., Martinez-Vazquez, J. & Wallace, S. (2002). State and local government choices in fiscal redistribution. National Tax Journal, 55(4), 723-742.
• BCMQ, Erişim Tarihi: 21.02.2023, https://kb.iu.edu/d/bcmq.
• Blöchliger, H. & D. King (2007). Less than you thought: The fiscal autonomy of sub-central governments. OECD Economic Studies, vol. 2, Erişim tarihi: 5.12.2022, https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_studiesv2006-art12-en.
• Bojanic, A. N. (2018). The impact of fiscal decentralization on growth, inflation, and inequality in the Americas. CEPAL Review, 124(124), 57–77. https://doi.org/10. 18356/31c71be8-en
• Bojanic, Antonio N. & Collins, LaPorchia A. (2021). Differential effects of decentralization on income inequality: Evidence from developed and developing countries. Empirical Economics, 60, 1969- 2004.
• Bonet, J. (2006). Fiscal decentralization and regional income disparities: Evidence from the Colombian experience. The Annals of Regional Science, 40, 661-676.
• Calamai, L. (2009). The link between devolution and regional disparities: Evidence from the Italian regions. Environment and Planning A, 41(5), 1129-1151.
• Cameron, A. C. & Trivedi. P. K., (2022). Microeconometrics Using Stata. 2nd edt College Station, TX: Stata Press.
• Canare, T., Francisco, J. P. & Caliso, R. A. C. (2020). Decentralization and income inequality in a panel and cross-section of countries. Journal of International Development, 32(4), 543-579.
• Cavusoglu, T. & Dincer, O. (2015). Does decentralization reduce income inequality? Only in rich states. Southern Economic Journal, 82(1), 285-306.
• Çukur, A. (2022). Türkiye’de Mali Yerelleşme ve Kamu Kesimi Büyüklüğü: 2009-2020. Maliye Dergisi, 182, Ocak-Haziran (182), 108-129.
• Çukur, A. (2023). Mali Yerelleşmenin Yerel Yönetimlerin Mali Disiplini Üzerine Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Maliye Dergisi, 184, 116-144.
• De Araujo J. (2017). Fiscal decentralization and regional inequality in Brazil. Erişim tarihi 15.02.2023, https://www.anpec.org.br/encontro/2017/submissao/files_I/i5-0b00a35e65eadbc6aac505007407 8d93.pdf
• Digdowiseiso, K. (2022). Are fiscal decentralization and institutional quality poverty abating? Empirical evidence from developing countries. Cogent Economics & Finance, 10(1), 2095769.
• Ebel, R. D. & Yılmaz, S. (2002). On the measurement and impact of fiscal decentralization. Policy Research Working Paper, 2809, Washington: World Bank.
• Ezcurra, R. & Pascual, P. (2008). Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: Evidence from several European Union countries. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1185-120.
• Feld, L. P., Frey, C., Schaltegger, C. & Schmid; L. A. (2021). Fiscal federalism and income inequality: An empirical analysis for Switzerland. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, (185), 463 -494.
• Gavriluta (Vatamanu), A.F., Onofrei, M. & Cigu, E. (2020). Fiscal decentralization and Inequality: An analysis on Romanian Regions. Ekonomický časopis, 68, 3–32.
• Goerl, C. A. & Seiferling, M. (2014). Income inequality, fiscal decentralization and transfer dependency. IMF Working Paper, 64.
• Güler, B. (1994). Belediye gelirlerinin yapısı: 1925-1989. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler Dergisi, 3 (1), 19-37.
• Güngör, H. (2018). Belediyelerin genel bütçe payları: Analiz-sorunlar öneriler. Ankara: Türkiye Belediyeler Birliği Yayınları.
• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Haughton, J. & Khandker, S. R. (2009). Handbook on poverty+ inequality. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
• Hung, N. T. & Thanh, S.D. (2022). Threshold effects of fiscal decentralization on income inequality: Evidence from Vietnam. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2111851.
• Hussain, S., Hali, S.M., Ahmad, R., Iqbal, S. & Iftikhar, H. (2021). Fiscal decentralization and poverty alleviation: A case study of Pakistan. Poverty Public Policy, 13, 139-154.
• İpek, E. Ş. (2018). Türkiye’de belediye gelirlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 1-19.
• Jütting, J., Corsi, E. & Stockmayer, A. (2005). Decentralization and poverty reduction, policy Insights No 5. OECD Development Center, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, Erişim tarihi: 09.03.2023, https://gsdrc.org/document-library/policy-insights-decentralisationand-poverty-reduction/
• Karim, Y. S. & Khan, R. E. (2020). Political economy of fiscal decentralization and poverty mitigation in Pakistan. Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 6 (2) 2020, 339-350.
• James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning with applications in R. New York: Springer.
• Lessmann C. (2009). Fiscal decentralization and regional disparity: Evidence from cross-section and panel data. Environment and Planning A, 41(10), 2455-2473.
• Lessmann, C. (2012). Regional inequality and decentralization: An empirical analysis. Environment and Planning A, 44(6), 1363–1388.
• Malicka, L. (2019). Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities in Czechia and Slovakia: Regression analysis at the NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 level. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of Economics &Administration, 27(47), 91-101.
• Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis. California: Sage Publications.
• Morelli, C. & Seaman, P. (2007). Devolution and inequality: A failure to create a community of equals? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 32, 523-538.
• Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy. New York: McGrawHill.
• Neyapti B. (2006). Revenue decentralization and income distribution. Economics Letters, 92(3), 409-416.
• Nursini, N. & Tawakkal. (2019). Poverty alleviation in the contex of fiscal decentralization in Indonesia. Economics and Sociology, 12(1), 270-285 . Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. Newyork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Oates W.E. (1993). Fiscal decentralization and economic development. National Tax Journal, 46(2), 237- 243.
• Pham, T. H., Bui, H. N., Do, A. D., Le, A. D., Ha, D. L. & Ngo, H. A. (2022). The impact of fiscal dece ntralization on poverty reduction in Vietnam. The Economics and Finance Letters, 9(2), 235- 243. Prud’homme, R. (1995). The dangers of decentralization. The World Bank Research Observer, 10(2), 201-220.
• Rodden J. (2004). Comparative federalism and decentralization: On meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics, 36(4), 81-500.
• Rodríguez-Pose, A. & Tselios, V. (2009). Education and income inequality in the regions of the European Union. Journal of Regional Science, 49(3), 411-437.
• Rodríguez-Pose, A. & Ezcurra, R. (2010). Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A crosscountry analysis. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(5), 619-644.
• Sacchi, A. & Salotti, S. (2014). The effects of fiscal decentralization on household income inequality: Some empirical evidence. Spatial Economic Analysis, 9(2), 202-222.
• Savitri, M. D. (2012). The impacts of fiscal decentralization on income inequality in Indonesia. Tokyo The Okuma School of Public Management, Waseda University.
• Sepulveda, C. F. & Martinez Vazquez, J. (2011). The consequences of fiscal decentralization on poverty and income inequality. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29 (2), 321-343.
• Shahzad, S. & Yasmin B. (2016). Does fiscal decentralization matter for poverty and income inequality in Pakistan? The Pakistan Development Review, (55), 781-802.
• Siburian, M. E. (2020) Fiscal decentralization and regional income inequality: evidence from Indonesia, Applied Economics Letters, 27(17), 1383-1386.
• Siburian, M. E. (2022). The link between fiscal decentralization and poverty –Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Asian Economics, 81, 101493.
• Song, J., Geng, L., Fahad, S. & Liu, L. (2022). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth revisited: An empirical analysis of poverty governance. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(19), 28020-28030.
• Steiner, S. (2005). Decentralisation and poverty reduction: A conceptual framework for the economic impact. GIGA Working Paper No 3.
• Stigler, G. (1957). The tenable range of functions of local government. In US Congress Joint Economic Committee (ed). Federal Expenditure Policy for Economic Growth and Stability (pp.213-219). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
• Tekdere, M. & Gürbüz, A. Ş. (2021). Türkiye’de Yerel Yönetimlerin Mali Sürdürülebilirliği: Ampirik bir analiz. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (70), 77-96.
• Tiebout, C. M. (1956). Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
• Tselios, V., Rodriguez-Pose, A., Pike, A., Tomaney, J. & Torrisi, G. (2012). Income ınequality, decentralisation, and regional development in western Europe. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(6), 1278-1301.
• Ulusoy, A. & Akdemir, T. (2017). Mahalli idareler. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
• Qiao, B., Martinez-Vazquez, J. & Xu, Y. (2008). Growth and equity tradeoff in decentralization policy: China’s experience. Journal of Development Economics, 86(1), 112-128.
• Qian, Y. & Weingast, B. (1997). Federalism as a commitment to preserving market ıncentives. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(4), 83-92.
• Valaris, N. (2012). Fiscal decentralization and its effect on poverty evidence from panel data on the lower 48 American states. ISU ReD: Research and EData, 8, 1-22.
• Vázquez, J. M., Lago-Peñas, S. & Sacchi, A. (2017). The impact of fiscal decentralization: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(4), 1095-1129.
• Yüksel, H. (2013). Türkiye’de mali yerelleşmenin boyutları ve ölçümü üzerine bir değerlendirme. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 20(2), 191-208.
• Yüksel, C. (2019). Türkiye’ de Yerel Yönetimlerin Mali Yapısındaki Dönüşüm. Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 267-286. Weingast, B. R. (2009). Second generation fiscal federalism: The implications of fiscal incentives. Journal of Urban Economics, 65(3), 279-293.
• Weingast, B. (2013). Second generation fiscal federalism: Political aspects of decentralization and economic development. World Development, 53, 14-25.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT press