Yaklaşım, İlke ve Unsurları Çerçevesinde Mali Yerelleşmeyi Anlamak

Öz

Son yıllarda mali yerelleşme kavramı giderek popüler hale gelmektedir. Mali yerelleşme yerel yönetimlerin bağımsız karar alabilme ve uygulayabilme yetkisinin olmasının yanı sıra kendi gelirlerini ve harcamalarını belirlemede özerk olmaları ve yeterli öz kaynağa sahip olmaları gerektiğine işaret etmektedir. Çok konuşulan ve tartışılan bir kavram haline gelen mali yerelleşme dünyanın birçok ülkesinde yapılan yerelleşme reformlarının önemli bir boyutunu oluşturmaktadır. Buradan hareketle çalışmanın amacı çok boyutlu ve ortak tanımı olmayan bir kavram olan mali yerelleşmeyi anlayabilmek için kavramı yaklaşım, ilke ve unsurları çerçevesinde ele almaktır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yerel Yönetimler,Yerelleşme,Özerklik,Mali Özerklik,Mali Yerelleşme

Understanding the Fiscal Decentralization in the Approach, Principles and Components

Öz

In recent years, the concept of fiscal decentralization has become increasingly popular. Fiscal decentralization refers to the fact that local governments have the authority to make independent decisions and implement, as well as to be autonomous in determining their own revenues and expenditures and have sufficient resources of self-sufficiency. Fiscal decentralization, which has become a widely spoken and debated concept, constitutes an important dimension of decentralization reforms in many countries of the world. The aim of the study is to deal with the concepts, principles and elements of the concept in order to understand the concept of multidimensional and non-common definition of fiscal decentralization.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Local Governments,Decentralization,Autonomy,Fiscal Autonomy,Fiscal Decentralization

Kaynakça

1. Akın, C. (1997). Türkiye’de yerel özerkliğin anlamı, Türk İdare Dergisi, 69 (414), 66-82.
2. Bahl, R.(1998). Implementation rules for fiscal decentralization, International Seminar on Land Policy and Economic Development, Land Reform Training Institute, Taiwan, November.
3. Bird, R. M. (1993). Threading the fiscal labyrinth: Some issues in fiscal decentralization, National Tax Journal, XLVI (2), 207-227.
4. Baskaran, T. (2011). Fiscal decentralization, ideology, and the size of the public sector, European Journal of Political Economy, 27 (3), 485-506.
5. Besley, T. ve Coate, S. (2003). Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: A political economy approach, Journal of Public Economics, 87(12), 2611-2637.
6. Brueckner, J. K. (2009). Partial fiscal decentralization, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(1), 23-32.
7. Busemeyer, M. R. (2008), The impact of fiscal decentralisation on education and other types of spending, Swiss Political Science Review, 14/3.
8. Collier, J., What is autonomy?, http://cogprints.org/2289/3/autonomy.pdf, (06.02.2013).

9. Crowley, G.R. ve Sobel, R. S. (2011). Does fiscal decentralization constrain leviathan? New evidence from local property tax competition, Public Choice, 149, 5-30.
10. Falay, N. (2006). Yerel yönetimlerin hizmet ve harcama sorumlulukları”, Ayşe Güner-Serdar Yılmaz (Editörler), Mali Yerelleşme: Teori ve Uygulama Üzerine Yazılar, İstanbul: Güncel Yayıncılık.
11. Fiva, J. H. (2006). New evidence on the effect of fiscal decentralization on the size and composition of government spending, FinanzArchiv / Public Finance Analysis, 62(2), 250-280.
12. Güner, A. (2005). Mali özerklik çerçevesinde yerel yönetimlerin gelirleri üzerine bir değerlendirme, 20. Türkiye Maliye Sempozyumu, Pamukkale: Pamukkale Üniversitesi, 23-27 Mayıs.
13. Güner, A. ve Yılmaz, S. (2006). Mali yerelleşme: Teori ve uygulama üzerine yazılar, İstanbul: Güncel Yayıncılık. Haldenwang, C. V. (2010), Taxation, fiscal decentralisation and legitimacy: the role of semi-autonomous tax agencies in Peru, Development Policy Review, 28 (6), 643-667.
14. Hankla, C. R. (2013), When is fiscal decentralization good for governance?”, The Journal of Federalism, 39 (4), 632-650.
15. Kuo, N-L. (2010). Fiscal decentralization in Taiwan-a case study of the centrally-allotted tax revenue program and local financial accountability”, Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy Department of Public Administration and Policy, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
16. Karabacak, B. N. (2012). Mali yerelleşme alanında ortaya çıkan yeni yaklaşımlar: Kuşaklar arası çatışma mı?, Maliye Dergisi, 163, 389-415.
17. Kyriacou, A. P. (2011) “Fiscal Decentralization and Government Quality In The OECD”, Oriol Roca-Sagalés, Economics Letters 111.
18. Litvack J. ve Seddon J. (1999), Decentralization briefing notes, World Bank Institute Working Papers: The World Bank, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/wbi37142.pdf, (06.05.2013).
19. Lockwood, B. (2002). Distributive politics and the costs of centralisation, Review of Economic Studies, 69/2.
20. Mello, L. R. D. (2004). Can fiscal decentralization strengthen social capital?, Public Finance Review, January.
21. Moralı, N. ve Çelikoğlu, C. C. (2001), Proje seçimi ve kaynak planlaması için bir algoritma, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(2), 94-99.
22. Musgrave, R. A. (2004). Kamu maliyesi teorisi, Çev: Orhan Şener ve Yaşar Methibay, Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti. Neyapti, B., Fiscal decentralization and deficits: International evidence, http://econ.bilkent.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/08-02-DP_BilinNeyapti.pdf, (05.05.2013).
23. Neyapti, B. (2010), Fiscal decentralization and deficits: International evidence”, European Journal of Political Economy, 26.
24. Neyapti, B. (2005), Fiscal decentralization and socio-economic outcomes in Turkey: An empirical investigation, Metu Studies In Development, 32.
25. Oates, W. E. (1993). Fiscal decentralization and economic development, National Tax Journal, 46 (2), 237-243.
26. Oates, W. E., (1999). An easy on fiscal federalism, Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1120-1149.
27. Oates, W. E. (2006). The many faces of the tiebout model, From William A. Fischel, ed., The Tiebout Model at Fifty, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, ss. 21-45, http://econweb.umd.edu/~oates/research/the%20many%20faces%20of%20the%20tiebout%20model.pdf (06.02.2013).
28. OECD (1999). Taxing powers of state and local government, OECD Tax Policy Studies, No. 1, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/2399051e.pdf?expires=1384347053&id=id&accname=oid016331&checksum=6F62156D435F127C097325CB12D26B26, (06.02.2013).
29. Rodden, J. A., Eskeland, G. S. ve Litvack, J. (2006). Fiscal decentralization and the challenge of hard budget constraints, National Tax Journal, 59(2), 389-396.
30. Shah, A. (1994) The reform of intergovermental fiscal relations in developing and emerging market economies, Policy and Research Series 23, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
31. Shah, A. (2006). Fiscal decentralization and macroeconomic management, International Tax and Public Finans, August, 13(4), 437–462.
32. Seabright, P. (1996). Accountability and decentralisation in government: An incomplete contracts model, European Economic Review, 40(1996), 61-89 Smoke, P. (2001). Fiscal decentralization in developing countries a review of current concepts and practice, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Programme Paper Number 2, February.
33. Smith, H. J. M. (2012). Fiscal decentralization and development: an analysis of city governments in Argentina And Mexico 1980-2010, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
34. Tanzi, V. (1995). Fiscal federalism and decentralization: A review of some effciency and macroecomic aspects, Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, World Bank Washington DC, https://mef.gob.pe/contenidos/pol_econ/documentos/Fiscal_Federalism_Decentralization.pdf, (06.05.2013).
35. TDK, Güncel Türkçe sözlüğü, http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&arama=gts&guid=TDK.GTS.53c111cd7e92f1.97602456, (06.02.2013).
36. TDK, Güncel Türkçe sözlüğü, http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&arama=gts&guid=TDK.GTS.53c11f46875158.17999561, (06.02.2013).
37. UNDP (2005). Fiscal decentralization in transition economies: Case studies from the balkans and caucasus, Bratislava, http://www.cea.org.mk/documents/studii/FiscalDecentralization2005%20UNDP.pdf, (06.05.2013).
38. Weingast, B. R. (1995). The economic role of political institutions: Market-preserving federalism and economic development, Journal Of Law, Economics And Organisations, 15(1), 1-31.
39. Weingast, B. R. (2006). Second generation fiscal federalism: ımplications for decentralized democratic governance and economic development, August, http://www.ifigr.org/workshop/IFIR-CESifo/papers/weingast.pdf, (06.02.2013).
40. Vazquez J. M. ve Mcnab, R. M. (2003). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth, World Development, 31(9), 1597-1616.
41. Vo, D. H. (2010). The Economics Of Fiscal Decentralization, Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(4), 657-679.
42. Yao, G. A. (2006). Fiscal decentralization and poverty reduction outcomes: Theory and evidence”, Georgia State University, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
43. Yıldız, A. B., Performans yönetimi ve bütçeleme, http://kontrol.bumko.gov.tr/Eklenti/3899,performansadayalibutcehazirlamauygulamabahadirypdf.pdf?0, (06.02.2013). Yeung, R. (2009). The effects of fiscal decentralization on the size of government: a meta-analysis, Public Budgeting & Finance, 29(4), 1-23.
44. Yüksel, F. (2005). Yerel özerklik kavramı üzerine bir inceleme, Ed: Muhammet Kösecik-Hüseyin Özgür, Yerel Yönetimler Üzerine Güncel Yazılar – I, Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.