Mali yerelleşme alanında ortaya çıkan yeni yaklaşımlar: Kuşaklar arası çatışma mı?

1990ların ortasından itibaren kamu ekonomisi alanı dışındaki çeşitli görüşlerden yararlanarak çok katlı devletin yapı ve işleyişine yeni bir anlayış sağlayan mali yerelleşmenin ikinci kuşak yaklaşımları ortaya çıkmaya başladı. İkinci kuşak yaklaşımlar kendinden önceki bugün artık birinci kuşak olarak adlandırılan yaklaşımın iyilikseverlik ve tekdüzelik olmak üzere iki temel dayanağına itiraz eder ve buradan yola çıkar. Siyasi yöneticilerin vatandaşların çıkarlarını sağlamak üzere bir dürtülerinin olmadığını, bu yüzden bilgi ve teşvik sorunlarının ortaya çıktığı durumda hangi biçimde bir yönetim yapısının etkin kamu malı sunumunu ve piyasa teşviklerini korumayı nasıl yerine getireceğini irdeler. Bu çalışmada, ikinci kuşak teorilerin temeldeki kaygıları, itirazları, dayanakları ve piyasayı koruyucu devleti sağlamanın koşulu olarak gördükleri önerileri inceleme konusu edilmiştir. Ayrıca, bu iki kuşak arasında belirgin bir çatışmanın yaşanıp yaşanmadığının anlaşılmasına, farklılık ve benzerliklerinin açığa çıkarılmasına çalışılmıştır.

The new approaches emerging in the fiscal decentralization: Is it a conflict between generations?

Since the mid-1990s, drawing on ideas from outside the field of public economics, a new second generation theory of fiscal decentralization has begun to emerge, which provides new insights into the structure and working of multi-level government. Second generation approaches refuse two main assumptions of now called first generation theory of fiscal decentralization, benevolent behavior on the part of public agents and uniformity in the centralized provision of local public services and set out here. Second generation asserts that there are no incentives of political officials to further the interest of citizens, so in the case of information and incentives problems, what kind of governments, and how to commit to providing efficient public goods and preserving market incentives. Purpose of this study is to find out the main concerns, the challenges, the considerations, and the implications that they entirely observe as conditions for providing the preserving market state of second generation theory. In addition, effort is made to come out whether there is a significant conflict between these two generations and to also reveal the differences and the comparations between them.

PDF

___

Ata, A.Y. (2009), Kurumsal İktisat Çerçevesinde Yolsuzluğun Fırsat ve Motivasyonları: AB Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme, Doktora Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.

Besley, T. ve Coate, S. (2003), Centralized Versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Approach, Journal of Public Economics 87, 2611-2637.

Boex, J. (2009), Fiscal Decentralization and Intergovernmental Finance Reform as an International Development Strategy, IDG Working Paper, No:2009-06 June.

Brennan, D. ve Buchanan, J. (1980), The Power to Tax: Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Consitution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Çetin, T. (2007), Devletin Ekonomiye Müdahalesinin Kurumsal Maliyeti, Çimento-İşveren, Mayıs, 38-55.

Demir, Ö. (1996), Kurumcu İktisat, Vadi Yayınları, Ankara.

Dollery, B. (2002), A Century of Vertical Fiscal Imbalance in Australian, University of New England School of Economics Working Paper Series in Economics, 2, 1-28.

Fukuyama, F. (2005), Devletin İnşası, 21. Yüzyılda Dünya Düzeni ve Yönetişim, Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul.

Garzarelli G. (2004), Old and New Theories of Fiscal Federalism, Organizational Design Problems, and Tiebout, Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice, 22(1-2), 1-16.

Kirmanoğlu, H. (2011), Kamu Ekonomisi Analizi, Beta, İstanbul.

Klitgaard, R. (1988), Controlling Corruption, University of California Press, England.

Koppel, O. (2005), Reviewing Oates Insights in a Repeated Game Setting, Economics of Governance, 6, 229-243.

Lockwood, B. (2002), Distributive Politics and the Cost of Centraliaztion, Review of Economics Studies, 69, 313-337.

Martell, C.R. (2006), The Fiscal Institutions of Brazilian Municipalities, The International Society for New Institutional Economics Annual Conference, Boulder, Colorado, September 22.

North, D.C. ve Weingast, B.R. (1989), The Evolution of Institutional Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England, The Journal of Economic History, 49(4), 803-832.

Oates Wallace, E. (2005), Toward a Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism, International Tax and Public Finance, 12, 349-373.

Oates Wallace, E. (2006), Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints, National Tax Journal, 59(2), 389-396.

Oates Wallace, E. (2008), On the Evolution of Fiscal Federalism: Theory and Institutions, National Tax Journal, 61(2), 313-334.

Riker, W.H. (1964), Federalism: Origin, Operation, and Signification, Little Brown, Boston.

Rodden, J., Eskelund, G.S. ve Litvack, J.I. (Eds.), (2003), Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Rutters, M. (2008), Financial Decentralisation of Governance of Urban Policy in France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, WestfälischeWilhelms-Universität Münster.

Qian, Y. ve Weingast, B.R. (1997), Federalism as a Commitment to Perserving Market Incentives, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(4), 83-92.

Tommasi, M. ve Weinschelbaum, F. (2007), Centralization vs. Decentralization: A Principle-Agent Analysis, Journal of Public Economic Theory 9(2), 369-389.

Vo, D.H. (2010), 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 Development, The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 11(1), 1-31.

Weingast, B.R. (2009), Second Generation Fiscal Federalism: The Implications of Fiscal Incentives, Journal of Urban Economics, 65, 279-293.

Wrede, M. (2006), Uniformity Requirement and Political Accountability, _____http://www.ifigr.org/workshop/IFIR-CESifo/papers/wrede.pdf>

Yee, E. (2001), The Effects of Fiscal Decentralization on Health Care in China, University Avenue Undergraduate Journal of Economics, 1-34.

Yılmaz, F. (2002), Piyasa Firma Ayırımı Çerçevesinde Firma Teorisi, Gazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 1, 67-82.