Optimality of Public Capital in Turkey: A Regional Analysis

Öz

The aim of this study is to empirically investigate whether public capital is provided optimally both at the national and regional levels in Turkey. Our empirical work shows that public capital significantly contributes to the production of private manufacturing sector. Nonetheless, the findings also indicate that marginal productivity of public capital is smaller than that of private capital, suggesting that public capital is over-provided at the national level. At the regional level however, the picture is quite different. While public capital is over-provided for the provinces with high performance in terms of income, it is less-provided for the provinces with low performance. These results may be taken to interpret that there exists no “efficiency vs. equality” trade-off for public investment policy, and thus public investment as a regional policy ought to be used for distributional (equality) purposes in Turkey

Türkiye’de Kamu Sermayesinin Optimalliği: Bölgesel Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye‟de, gerek ulusal gerek bölgesel düzeyde, kamu sermayesinin optimal düzeye ulaşıp ulaşmadığını ampirik yöntemlerle irdelemektir. Öncelikli olarak, yaptığımız çalışma, Türkiye‟de kamu sermayesinin özel imalat sektörünün üretimi üzerinde pozitif katkı yarattığını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Ancak, ele aldığımız dönem içinde kamu sermayesinin marjinal verimliliği, özel sektör sermayesinin marjinal verimliliğinden daha düşük çıktığından, tüm ekonomi için kamu sermayesinin optimal düzeyi aştığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Fakat, bu senaryo, bölgesel düzeydeki analizimiz için birebir geçerli olmamaktadır. Yüksek performanslı illerde kamu sermayesi optimal düzeyi aşarken, düşük performanslı illerde kamu sermayesinin optimalin altında sağlandığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuç, uygulanacak kamu yatırım politikalarında “etkinlik-eşitlik açmazı” ile karşı karşıya kalınmayacağına ve dolayısıyla kamu yatırımlarının, bölgesel bir politika aracı olarak eşitlik ilkesi temelinde şekillendirilmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Kaynakça

1. ASCHAUER, D.A. (1989), “Is Public Expenditure Productive?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 23: 177-200.
2. ASCHAUER, D.A. (2000), “Public Capital and Economic Growth: Issues of Quantity, Finance and Efficiency”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(2): 391-406.
3. BADAWI, A. (2003), “Private Capital Formation and Public Investment in Sudan: Testing The Substitutability and Complementarity Hypotheses in a Growth Framework”, Journal of International Development, 15, pp:783-799.
4. BAJO- RUBIO, O. ve C. DIAZ-ROLDAN (2005), “Optimal Endowments of Public Capital: An Empirical Analysis for the Spanish Regions”, Regional Studies, 39(3): 297-304.
5. BOSCA, J.E., ESCRIBA, F. ve MURGUI, M.J. (2002), “The Effect of Public Infrastructure on the Private Productive Sector of Spanish Regions” Journal of Regional Science. 42 (2): 10-25.
6. BERGSTROM, F. (2000), “Capital Subsidies and Performance of Firms”, Small Business Economics 14: 183-193.
7. BONAGLIA, F. ve FERRERA, E. (2000), “Public Capital and Economic Performance: Evidence for Italy”, Inncenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research. Working Paper Series No. 163:1-29.
8. DELORME, C., THOMPSON,H. ve WARREN,R. (1999), “Public Infrastructure and Private Productivity: A Stochastic Frontier Approach”, Journal of Macroeconomics 21(3): 563-576.

9. DESSUS, S. (2000), “Public Capital and Growth Revisited: A Panel Data Assessment”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48 (2): 407-509.
10. ERDEN, L. ve H. KARAÇAY-ÇAKMAK (2005), “Local Development and the Changing Role of Government in Turkey: An Analysis of Provincal Panel Data”, Hacettepe Univ. Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 23 (2) 13-32.
11. EVANS P. ve KARRAS, G. (1994), “Are Government Activities Productive? Evidence from a Panel of US States”, The Review of Economics and Statistics 76: 1-11.
12. EZCURRA, R., GIL, C., PASCUAL, P. ve RAPUN,M. (2005), “Public Capital, Regional Productivityand Spatial Spillovers”, The Annals of Regional Science, 39: 471-494.
13. FERNANDEZ, M. ve MONTUENGA-GOMEZ, V. (2003), “The Effects of Public Capital on the Growth in Spanish Productivity”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 23: 383-393.
14. FUEST, C. ve HUBER, B. (2006), “Can Regional Policy in a Federation Improve Economic Efficiency”, Journal of Public Economics, 90 (3), 499-511.
15. GARCIA- MILA, T., MCGUIRE, T. ve PORTER,R. (1995), “The Effects of Public Capital in State Level Production Functions”, Review of Economics and Statistics 32: 395- 415.
16. GUNAYDIN, İ. (2006), “Türkiye‟de Kamu ve Özel Yatırımlar Arasındaki İlişki: Ampirik Bir Analiz”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 20 (1): 177- 195.
17. HARTIGAN, J.A. ve WANG, M.A (1979), “A K-means Clustering Algorithm”, Applied Statistics 28: 100-108.
18. HULTEN, C.R. ve SCHWAB R.M. (1993), “Infrastructure Spending: Where do we go from here?”, National Tax Journal 46(3): 261-273.
19. HOLTZ-EAKIN D. (1994), “Public-Sector Capital and the Productivity Puzzle”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76,No. 1.
20. HOLTZ-EAKIN D. ve SCHWARTZ, A.(1995), “Spatial Productivity Spillovers from Public Infrastructure: Evidence from State Highways”, International Tax and Public Finance, 2: 459–468.
21. KARRAS, G. (1997), “Is Government Investment under-provided in Europe? Evidence from a Panel of Fifteen Countries”, Economia Internazionale, 50:223-235.
22. KIM, S.ve LEE,Y. (2002), “Public Sector Capital and Production Efficiency of US Regional Manufacturing Industries”, The Japanese Economic Review, 53(4): 466-477.
23. KRUGMAN P., (1991), “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography”, Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483– 499.
24. MASTROMARCO, C. ve WOITEK, U. (2004), “Public Infrastructure Investment and Efficiency in Italian Regions”, Journal of Productivity Analysis 25(1-2): 57-65
25. MAUDOS, J. PASTOR, J. ve SERRANO, L (1999), “Total Factor Productivity Measurement and Human Capital in OECD Countries”, Economics Letters, 63: 39–44.
26. MILLER, N.J. ve C. TSOUKIS (2001), “On the Optimality of Public Capital for Long-Run Economic Growth: Evidence from Panel Data”, Applied Economics, 33(9): 11-17.
27. MUNNEL, A. H. (1990), “Why Has Productivity Growth Declined? Productivity and Public Investment”, New England Economic Review January/February: 3-22.
28. ÖNDER, O., E. DELİKTAŞ ve A. LENGER (2003), “Efficiency in the Manufacturing Industry of Selected Provinces in Turkey”, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 39(2): 98-113.
29. RAMİREZ, M. (2000), “Public Capital Formation and Labor Productivity Growth in Chile”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 18: 158-169.
30. SALİNAS-JIMENEZ, M. (2004), “Public Infrastructure and Private Productivity in the Spanish Regions”, Journal of Policy Modeling 26(1): 47-64.
31. SKURAS, D., TSEKOURAS, K., DIMARA, S. ve TZELEPIS, D. (2006), “The Effects of Regional Capital Subsidies on Productivity Growth: A Case Study of the Greek Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industry”, Journal of Regional Science, 46(2): 355-381.
32. TZELEPIS D. & SKURAS, D. (2004), “The Effects of Regional Capital Subsidies on Firm Performance: An Empirical Study”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 11(1): 121-129.
33. YAVUZ, N. Ç. (2005), “Türkiye‟de Kamu Harcamalarının Özel Sektör Yatırım Harcamalarını Dışlama Etkisi”, Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 20(1): 269-284.
34. YILDIRIM, J. (2005), “Regional Policy and Economic Convergence in Turkey A Spatial Data Analysis”, 18th European Advanced Studies Institute in Regional Science, 1-10 Temmuz, Krakov, Polonya
35. ZAİM, O. ve TAŞKIN, F. (1997) “The Comparative Performance of Public Enterprise Sector in Turkey”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 25: 129- 157.