In this paper I examine local fiscal response to revenue sharing in Turkey under two main headings: revenue response and expenditure response. Whether local revenue is responsive to revenue sharing is examined by using cross-section and time-series analyses. The results of the cross-section analysis are inconclusive. However, evidence based on the time trend of the tax-effort ratio indicates that tax effort is influenced by the institutional framework of property taxation. This finding implies that local revenue is not responsive to revenue sharing. Whether local expenditure is responsive to revenue sharing is examined by using cross-section, time-series, and panel-data analyses. The results show that there is a strong positive relationship between the revenue sharing and expenditure trends. The Granger causality test indicates that revenue sharing drives expenditure, and this shows the existence of the circularity problem. These findings imply that local expenditure is responsive to revenue sharing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BahlR, 1968, “Studies on determinants of public expenditures: A review”, in Functional Federalism Eds MushkinS JCottonJ F, (George Washington University Press, Washington, DC) pp 184–207.
2.
BahlR, 1971, “A regression approach to tax effort and tax ratio analysis”IMF Staff Papers18570–612.
3.
BahlR, 1972, “A representative tax system approach to measuring tax effort in developing countries”IMF Staff Papers1987–124.
4.
BahlRLinnJ F, 1992Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries (The World Bank in association with Oxford University Press, New York).
5.
BaltagiB H, 1995Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex).
6.
BelessiotisT, 1995, “Fiscal revenues and expenditure in the community”, European Commission Economic Papers, number 114 (European Commission, Brussels).
7.
BirdRSlackE, 1990, “Equalization: The representative tax system revisited”Canadian Tax Journal38913–927.
8.
BirdRWallichC, 1992, “Financing local government in Hungary”, Policy Research Working Papers, WPS 869, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
9.
CarrolC DWeilN W, 1994, “Saving and growth: A reinterpretation”Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy40133–192.
10.
ChelliahRBaasHKellyM, 1975, “Tax ratios and tax effort in developing countries, 1969 – 71”IMF Staff Papers22187–205.
11.
ChoudryN, 1979, “Measuring the elasticity of tax revenue: A divisia index approach”IMF Staff Papers2687–122.
12.
ConwayR KSwamyP A V BYanagidaJ FMuehlnP, 1984, “The impossibility of causality testing”Agricultural Economics Research361–19.
13.
DahlbergMJohanssonE, 1998, “The revenues-expenditures nexus: Panel data evidence from Swedish municipalities”Applied Economics301379–1386.
14.
DuncombeW, 1996, “Public expenditure research: What have we learned?”Public Budgeting and Finance1626–58.
15.
GamkharS, 1996Is State and Local Government Expenditure Responsive to Reductions in Federal GrantsPhD thesis, Department of Economics, The University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
16.
GoldS D, 1986, “Measuring fiscal effort and fiscal capacity: Sorting out some of the controversies”, in Measuring Fiscal Capacity Ed. ReevesH C, (Lincoln Institute, Boston, MA) pp 29–50.
17.
GramlichE M, 1977, “Intergovernmental grants: A review of the empirical literature”, in The Political Economy of Fiscal Federalism Ed. OatesW E, (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA) pp 219–239.
18.
GrangerC W J, 1969, “Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods”Econometrica37424–438.
19.
HardyH M, 1976, “Budgetary responses of individual governmental units to federal grants”Public Finance Quarterly4176–186.
20.
HirawanS B, 1990The Role of Revenue Sharing in Intergovernmental Financial Relations: The Indonesian CasePhD thesis, Development Administration Group, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
21.
Holtz-EakinDNeweyWRosenH S, 1988, “Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data”Econometrica561371–1395.
22.
Holtz-EakinDNeweyWRosenH S, 1989, “The revenues-expenditures nexus: Evidence from local government data”International Economic Review30415–429.
23.
InmanR P, 1979, “The fiscal performance of local governments: An interpretative review”, in Current Issues in Urban Economics Eds MieszkowskiPStraszheimM, (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD) pp 270–321.
24.
IslamM NChoudryS A, 1990, “Testing the exogenity of grants to local governments”Canadian Journal of Economics23676–692.
25.
JudsonR AOwenA L, 1996Estimating Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Practical Guide for MacroeconomistsFederal Reserve Board of Governors, Finance and Economic Discussion Series, 1997–3; http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/pubs/feds/1997/index.html.
McMasterJ, 1991Urban Financial Management: A Training Manual EDI Technical Materials (The World Bank, Washington, DC).
28.
MaddalaG S, 1992Introduction to Econometrics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
29.
MarlowM LManageN, 1987, “Expenditure and receipts: Testing for causality in state and local government finances”Public Choice53243–255.
30.
MushkinS JCottonJ F, (Eds), 1968Functional Federalism (George Washington University Press, Washington, DC).
31.
ReesD G, 1989Essential Statistics (Chapman and Hall, London).
32.
SagbasI, 1999Fiscal Equalization and The Revenue Sharing System in Turkey: An Empirical StudyPhD thesis, International Development Department, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
33.
SarojiniM, 1992, “Federal transfers and tax effort”Indian Journal of Economics73145–158.
34.
SlackEBirdR M, 1983, “Local response to intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case of Columbia”Public Finance38429–439.
35.
StotskyJ GSunleyE M, 1997, “United States”, in Fiscal Federalism in Theory and Practice Ed. Ter-MinassianT, (IMF, Washington, DC) pp 359–383.
36.
Von FurstenbergG MGreenR JJeongJ, 1985, “Have taxes led government expenditures? The United States as a test case”Journal of Public Policy5321–348.
