LOCALIZATION RATIONAL IN THE PUBLIC ECONOMY THEORY AND COMPARISON OF FISCAL FEDERALISM THEORIES BELONGING TO DIFFERENT GENERATIONS / Kamu Ekonomisi Teorisinde Yerelleşme Rasyoneli Ve Kuşaklar Arası Mali Federalizm Teorilerinin Karşılaştırılması

Year 2018, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 21 - 42, 30.04.2018

Önder Çalcalı

https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.377598

Abstract

The
discussions on the theory of public economy are based on the public sector's
place, role and its implications in the economy. The public sector includes
central government as well as local government units. Whereas in some countries
there is a structure in the form of local public administration units directly
linked to central government; in some countries, the political and financial
dependence of the local public administration units to the central government
is weaker. This second type of public administration, which is considered
"autonomous", is mostly found in federal countries. It is important
to analyse the factors that lie at the basis of the assets owned by local
public administration units, which are the main elements of public
administration; as well as the proper level of financial autonomy that should
be given to the local public administration units. This study compares the
first and second generations of the financial federalism theory, which is
shaped around the idea of giving greater financial freedoms to local public
administration units and presents the common and different aspects between the
two generations.

Keywords

Fiscal Federalizm Theory, Localization, Fiscal Decentralization

KAMU EKONOMİSİ TEORİSİNDE YERELLEŞME RASYONELİ VE KUŞAKLAR ARASI MALİ FEDERALİZM TEORİLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI / Localization Rational In The Public Economy Theory And Comparison Of Fiscal Federalism Theories Belonging To Different Generations

Abstract

Kamu ekonomisi teorisi üzerine yapılan
tartışmalar, kamu kesiminin ekonomi içindeki yeri,  rolü ve bunun etkileri üzerine yapılmaktadır.
Kamu kesimi, merkezi yönetim ile beraber yerel yönetim birimlerini de
kapsamaktadır.  Kimi ülkelerde merkezi
yönetime doğrudan bağlı yerel kamu yönetim birimleri şeklinde bir yapılanma
mevcut iken; kimi ülkelerde ise, yerel kamu yönetim birimlerinin merkezi
yönetime olan siyasi ve mali bağımlılıkları daha zayıftır. “Özerk” nitelikli
olarak kabul edilen bu ikinci tür yerel kamu yönetim birimlerine daha çok
federal yapılı ülkelerde rastlanmaktadır. Kamu yönetiminin asli unsurlarından
olan yerel yönetim birimlerinin varlıklarına gerekçe oluşturan unsurlar ve mali
özerklik derecelerinin hangi düzeyde olması gerektiği hususlarının analizi önem
taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma, mali anlamda yerel kamu yönetim birimlerine daha
fazla serbestlik tanınması etrafında şekillenen mali federalizm teorisinin,
birinci ve ikinci kuşağını karşılaştırmakta ve iki kuşak arasındaki ortak ve
farklı noktaları ortaya koymaktadır. 

Keywords

Mali Federalizm Teorisi, Yerelleşme, Mali Yerelleşme

References

• Akalın, G. (2000). Kamu Ekonomisi, Ankara: Akçağ Yayınevi.
• Bailey, J. S. (1995). Public Sector Economics: Theory, Policy and Practice, London: Palgrave Macmillan Press.
• Bailey, J. S. (1999). Local Government Economics: Principle And Practice, London: Palgrave Macmillan Press.
• Besley, Timothy ve Coate, S. (2003). Centralized Versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Approach, Journal of Public Economics, No. 87,s. 2611 – 2637.
• Bird, M. R. (2004). Transfers and İncentives in İntergovernmental Fiscal Relations. Working Paper. Erişim adresi: www.fiscalreform.net
• Bird, M. R. (2005). Fiscal Federalism, The Encyclopedia of Taxation And Tax Policy (ed. Cordes J.J., Ebel R.D., Gravelle J.G.), Washington: The Urban Ins. Press, s. 151-154.
• Boyne, G. A. (1996). Competition and Local Government: A Public Choise Perspective. Urban Studies, 33(4-5), 703-721.
• Brautigam, D. (2002). Building Leviathan: Revenue, State Capacity and Governance. Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 33 (3), 10-19.
• Brennan, G. ve –Buchanan, J. M. (1980). The Power to Tax: Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brown C. V. ve Jackson. P. M. (1990). Public Sector Economic. Oxford, UK:Blackwell Pub.
• Buchanan, J. M. (1950). Federalism and Fiscal Equity. The American Economic Review, 40 (4), 583-599, Erişim adresi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1808426?seq=1
• Chandra, J. P. (2012). Theory of Fiscal Federalism: An Analysis. MPRA Paper, No. 41769, Erişim adresi: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41769/
• Darby, J. vd. (2003). Fiscal Decentralisation in Europe: A Review of Recent Experience. European Research in Regional Science, 13, 1-31, Erişim adresi: http://homepages.strath.ac.uk/~hbs03117/ERSA_DMR
• De Mello, L. (2000). Fiscal Decentralization and İntergovernmental Fiscal Relations: A Cross Country Analysis. World Devolepment, 28(22), 365-380.
• Güler, B. A. (2006). Yerel Yönetimler, Liberal Açıklamalara Eleştirel Yaklaşım. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
• Inman, R. P. ve Rubinfeld, D. L., (1997) The Political Economy of Federalism, in D. Mueller, ed., Perspectives on Public Choice Theory, 73-105, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Jin, H. vd. (2005). Regional Decentralization and Fiscal Incentives: Federalism, Chinese Style. Journal of Public Economics, 89,1719-1742.
• Karabacak, N. B., (2012). Mali Yerelleşme Alanında Ortaya Çıkan Yeni Yaklaşımlar: Kuşaklar Arası Çatışma Mı?. Maliye Dergisi,163, 389-415.
• Karabacak, N. B., (2014). Kuşaklar Arası Merkezileşmeye Karşı Yerelleşme Tartışmalarında İdareler Arası Transferlerin Yeri. İ. Ü. İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 64, 47-82.
• Keleş, R. (2012). Yerinden Yönetim ve Siyaset. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.
• Kirmanoğlu, H., (2009). Kamu Ekonomisi Analizi. 2. Baskı, Ankara: Beta Yayınevi.
• Litvack J. ve Seddon, J., (1999). Decentralization Briefing Notes, World Bank Institute, WBI Working Papers in Collaboration with PREM Network, Erişim adresi: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/8680/ Decentralization%20Briefing%20Notes.pdf
• Lockwood, B. (2002). Distributive Politics and the Benefits of Decentralisation. Review of Economic Studies, 69, 313-338.
• McLure, C. E. ve Vazquez, J. M., (2001). The Assignment of Revenues and Expenditures in Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations. World Bank Working Paper, Erişim adresi: http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/ decentralization/March2004Course/AssignmentRevenues.pdf
• Musgrave, R. A., (1959). The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Musgrave, R. A. ve Musgrave, P. B., (1989). Public Finance In Theory And Practice. USA: International Student Edition.
• Nadaroğlu, H., (2001). Mahalli İdareler. Yedinci Baskı. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
• Oates, W. E., (1968). The Theory of Public Finance in a Federal System. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 1(1), 37-54.
• Oates, W. E., (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
• Oates, W. E., (1991). Studies In Fiscal Federalism. England, USA: Edward Elgar.
• Oates, W. E., (1999). An Essay on Fiscal Federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1120-1149.
• Oates, W. E., (2005). Toward a Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism. International Tax and Public Finance, 12, 349-373.
• Oates, W. E., (2006). Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints. National Tax Journal, 59(2), 389-396.
• Olson, M. (1969). The Principle of ‘Fiscal Equivalence’: the Division of Responsibilities Among Different Levels of Government. American Economic Review, 59, 479–487.
• Qian, Y. ve Roland, G., (1998). Federalism and the Soft Budget Constraint. American Economic Review, 88(5), 1143–1162.
• Seabright, P. (1996). Accountability and Decentralization in Government: An Incomplete Contracts Model. European Economic Review, 40, 61–89.
• Smith, S. (1991). Reasons For The Decentralization Of Government. Local Government: An International Perspective, Owens, J. ve Panella, G., (ed)., içinde, North– Netherlands, Amsterdam, 55-63.
• Stiglitz, J. E., (2000). Economics of the Public Sector. New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Third Edition.
• Tiebout, C. M., (1956). A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416-424, Erişim adresi: http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/ PLSC541_Fall08/tiebout_ 1956.pdf
• Ulusoy, A. ve Akdemir, T., (2009). Yerel Yönetimler ve Mali Özerklik: Türkiye ve OECD Ülkelerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(21), 259-287.
• Vo, H. D., (2009), The Economics of Fiscal Decentralization. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(4), 657–679.
• Weingast, B. R., (1995). The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Growth. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 11, 1-31.
• World Bank. (2004). Decentralization, Subnational Regional Economics. Erişim adresi: www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/data.htm
• Yılmaz, H. H. vd. (2012). Yerel Yönetimler Maliyesi Temel İlkeler ile Mevzuat ve Uygulama Açısından Türk Yerel Yönetim Yapılanmasında Mali Yönetim ve Kaynak Kullanım Sistemi. Ankara: Mali Hizmetler Derneği Yayını.
• Zeng, X., (2010). The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization and Market Transition on Local Public Finance in China. Doctoral Thesis. Universty College, London,
• Zhang, Yongjing ve Su, Z., (2011). China’s Fiscal Federalism as a “Two-Edged Sword: A Public Choice Evaluation. Public Choice Society, San Antonio, USA.