YEREL YÖNETİMLERDE ÖLÇEĞİ BÜYÜTMENİN EKONOMİK SONUÇLARI: BELEDİYE BİRLEŞMELERİ ÜZERİNDEN BİR İNCELEME

Belediye birleşmeleri, bir yüzyıla yaklaşan tarihiyle tüm dünyada uygulanan yerel yönetim reformlarının en önemlilerinden biridir. Başta büyük nüfus içeren yerel yönetimlere sahip Kuzey Avrupa ülkeleri olmak üzere, dünyanın pek çok ülkesinde belediye sayıları, birleştirmeler yoluyla azaltılmaktadır. Birleştirme reformlarının en önemli motivasyon unsuru, her zaman ölçek ekonomisi tezi olmuştur. Büyüklüğü verimlilikle ilişkili gören reform stratejileri, belediye birleşmeleri ile artan büyüklüğün ortalama maliyetleri düşüreceğini varsaymaktadır. Maliyetlerde düşüş beklentisi beş gerekçeye dayandırılmaktadır. Bunlar sabit maliyetlerin daha büyük birimlere yayılması, küçük birimlerdeki tekrarlanan örgütlenmeler kaynaklı israfın (duplication / mükerrer örgütlenme) ortadan kalkması, belediye yönetiminde uzmanlaşmanın sağlanması, daha gerçekçi planlama yapılabilmesi ile doğrudan ve dolaylı idari harcamaların azalmasıdır. Ancak bu ilişkiyi alanda test eden araştırmaların önemli bir kısmı varsayıma destek veren net kanıtlar ortaya koyamamaktadır. Birleşmeler yoluyla ortaya çıkan belediye büyüklüğünün tümüyle ölçek ekonomilerini gerçekleştirebildiğine dair kanıtlar sunabilen çalışmaların sayısı oldukça sınırlıdır. Ölçek kanıtları bulan çalışmalarda; ölçek kazançları ya yalnızca idarenin genel harcamalarıyla sınırlı kalmakta ya da belli bir büyüklüğün üstüne çıkıldığında ortadan kalkmaktadır. Bazı kanıtlar ise yalnızca belli hizmetlerle sınırlıdır. Öte yandan araştırmaların çok daha büyük kısmı, belediye birleşmelerinin ölçek ekonomileri üretmediğini gösteren bulgulara sahiptir. Bu çalışma, sözü edilen kanıtları belli başlıklar altında gruplayarak değerlendirmekte ve belediye büyüklüğü artmasına karşın maliyetlerin neden azalmadığını gerekçeleriyle birlikte ortaya koymaktadır.

ECONOMIC RESULTS OF SCALE EXPANDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: AN EXAMINATION OVER THE MUNICIPAL AMALGAMATIONS

Municipal amalgamations with a history close to a century are one of the most important local government reforms carried out all over the world. Notably in the North European countries having local governments with large populations, numbers of the municipalities have been decreased through amalgamations in many countries of the world. The most important motivation factor of amalgamation reforms has always been the scale economy thesis. Reform strategies associate the size to efficiency assume that the size increases with municipal amalgamations would decrease the average cost. The expectation of decrease on the costs is based on five motives. These are diffusion of fixed costs to larger units, elimination of waste in small units derived from duplication, obtainment of specialization on municipal administration, the decrease of direct and indirect administrative expenses by means of more realistic planning. However, an important part of the researches that test this relationship on the field cannot reveal clear evidences support the assumption. The number of the studies prove the size of the municipality which comes out via amalgamations can realize scale economies entirely is quite limited. In the studies that have found evidences of scale, scale gains are either limited only with general expenditures of the administration or removed with the exceed of a particular size. Some evidences are only limited with particular services. On the other hand, the bigger part of the researches has evidences which show that the municipal amalgamations do not produce scale economies. This study evaluates the evidences mentioned by means of grouping under definite titles and presents why costs don’t decrease although the size of the municipality increases.

PDF

___

Aktan, C. Kamu Tercihi Teorisi. http://www.canaktan.org/ekonomi/anayasal_iktisat/kamu-tercihi.htm, (Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2019)
Allers, M. A., & Geertsema, J. (2016). The Effects of Local Government Amalgation on Public Spending, Taxation and Service Levels. Evidence From 15 Years of Municipal Consolidation. Journal of Regional Science, 56(4), 659-682.
Allers, M. A., & Van Ommeren, B. (2016). Intermunicipal cooperation, municipal amalgamation and the price of credit. Local Government Studies, 42(5), 717-738.
Aulich, C., Sansom, G., & McKinlay, P. (2014). A Fresh Look at Municipal Consolidation in Australia. Local Government Studies, 40(1), 1-20.
Baldersheim, H., & Rose, L. E. (2010). Territorial Choice: Rescaling Governance in European States.
H. Baldersheim, & L. E. Rose içinde, Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders (s. 1-20). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bikker, J., & Van Der Linde, D. (2016). Scale economies in local public administration. Local Government Studies, 42(3), 441-463.
Bish, R. L. (2001). ‘Local government amalgamations: Discredited nineteen-century ideas alive in the twenty-first. C.D. Howe Institute Commentary (The Urban Papers), 150.
Blesse, S., & Baskaran, T. (2016). Do municipal mergers reduce costs? Evidence from a German federal state. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 59, 54-74.
Blom-Hansen, J., Houlberg, K., & Serritzlew, S. (2014). Size, Democracy and the Economic Costs of Running the Political System. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 790-803.
Blom-Hansen, J., Houlberg, K., Serritzlew, S., & Treisman, D. (2016). Jurisdiction Size and Local Government Policy Expenditure: Assessing the Effect of Municipal Amalgamation. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 812-831.
Bovaird, T. (2014). Efficiency in Third Sector Partnerships for Delivering Local Government Services: The role of economies of scale, scope and learning. Public Management Review, 16(8), 1067- 1090.
Callanan, M., Murphy, R., & Quinlivan, A. (2014). The Risks of Intuition: Size, Costs and Economies of Scale in Local Government. The Economic and Social Review, 45(3), 371–403.
Carmeli, A. (2008). The Fiscal Distress of Local Governments in Israel Sources and Coping Strategies. Administration & Society, 39(8), 984-1007.
Christoffersen, H., & Bo Larsen, K. (2007). Economies of scale in Danish municipalities: Expenditure effects versus quality effects. Local Government Studies, 33(1), 77-95.
Cobban, T. W. (2017). Bigger Is Better: Reducing the Cost of Local Administration by Increasing Jurisdiction Size in Ontario, Canada, 1995–2010. Urban Affairs Review, 55(2), 462-500.
Copus, C. (2006). British Local Government: A Case for a New Constitutional Settlement. Public Policy and Administration, 21(2), 4-21.
Council of Europe. (2001). Relationship Between The Size of Local and Regional Authorities and Their Effectiveness and Economy of Their Action. Council of Europe: Steering Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR).
Derksen, W. (1988). Municipal amalgamation and the doubtful relation between size and performance. Local Government Studies, 14(6), 31-47.
Dollery, B., & Crase, L. (2004). Is bigger local government better? An evaluation of the case for Australian municipal amalgamation programs. Urban Policy and Research, 22(3), 265-275.
Dollery, B., & Fleming, E. (2005). A Conceptual Note on Scale Economies, Size Economies and Scope Economies in Australian Local Government. Armidale: University of New England School of Economics.
Dollery, B., Byrnes, J., & Crase, L. (2007). Is Bigger Better? Local Government Amalgamation and the South Australian Rising to the Challenge Inquiry. Economic Analysis & Policy, 37(1), 1-14.
Drew, J., & Dollery, B. (2014). Would Bigger Councils Yield Scale Economies in the Greater Perth Metropolitan Region? A Critique of the Metropolitan Local Government Review for Perth Local Government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(1), 128-137.
Drew, J., Kortt, M. A., & Dollery, B. (2016). Did the Big Stick Work? An Empirical Assessment of Scale Economies and the Queensland Forced Amalgamation Program. Local Government Studies, 42(1), 1-14.
Ebinger, F., Kuhlmann, S., & Bogumil, J. (2018). Territorial reforms in Europe: effects on administrative performance and democratic participation. Local Government Studies, 45(1), 1- 23.
Eryiğit, B. H. (2018). Metropoliten Alanların Yönetimine Dair Kuramlar Ekseninde Türkiye’de Büyükşehir Belediye Mevzuatının İrdelenmesi. TESAM Akademi Dergisi (Yerel Yönetimler Özel Sayısı), 51-76.
Eythórsson, G. T., & Karlsson, V. (2018). The Impact of Amalgamations on Services in Icelandic Municipalities. Nordicum-Mediterraneum, 13(1).
Fox, W., & Gurley, T. (2006). Will Consolidation Improve Sub-National Governments? Policy Research Working Paper 3913: The World Bank Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Public Sector Governance Group.
Gül, H., & Batman, S. (2013). Dünya ve Türkiye Örneklerinde Metropoliten Alan Yönetim Modelleri ve 6360 Sayılı Yasa. Yerel Politikalar, Ocak-Haziran, 7-47.
Grant, B., Dollery, B., & Crase, L. (2009). The Implications of the Lyons Report into Local Government in England for Structural Reform in Australian Local Government. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(10), 852-867.
Hanes, N. (2015). Amalgamation Impacts on Local Public Expenditures in Sweden. Local Government Studies, 41(1), 63-77.
Kızılboğa Özaslan, R. (2015). Belediyelerin Birleşmesinin "Nüfus, Gelir, Kamu Harcamaları, Katılım, Hizmet Kalitesi ve Vatandaş Memnuniyeti" Üzerindeki Etkisi. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 151-163.
Keating, M. (1995). Size, Efficiency and Democracy: Consolidation, Fragmentation and Publici Choice.
D. Judge, G. Stoker, & H. Wolman içinde, Theories of Urban Politics (s. 117-134). London: SAGE Publications.
Koethenbuerger, M. (2008). Revisiting the “Decentralization Theorem”-On the role of externalities. Journal of Urban Economics, 64(1), 116-122.
Kortt, M. A., Dollery, B., & Drew, J. (2016). Municipal Mergers in New Zealand: An Empirical Analysis of the Proposed Amalgamation of Hawke’s Bay Councils. Local Government Studies, 42(2), 228-247.
Kushner, J., & Siegel, D. (2003). Effect of Municipal Amalgamations in Ontario on Political Representation and Accessibility. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36(5), 1035-1051.
Kübler, D., & Heinelt, H. (2005). Metropolitan governance, democracy and the dynamics of place. D. Kübler, & H. Hubert içinde, Metropolitan Governance (s. 8-28). Routledge.
Mabuchi, M. (2001). Municipal Amalgamation in Japan. Washington: World Bank.
McKay, R. B. (2004). Reforming municipal services after amalgamation The challenge of efficiency. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(1), 24-47.
Miljan, L., & Spicer, Z. (2015). Municipal Amalgamation in Ontario. Fraser Institute.
Miyazaki, T. (2018). Examining the relationship between municipal consolidation and cost reduction: an instrumental variable approach. Applied Economics, 50(10), 1108-1121.
Moisio, A., & Uusitalo, R. (2013). The Impact of Municipal Mergers on Local Public Expenditures in Finland. Public Finance and Management, 13(3), 148-166.
Mouritzen, P. E. (2010). The Danish Revolution in Local Government: How and Why? H. Baldersheim, & L. E. Rose içinde, Territorial Choice The Politcs of Boundaries and Borders (s. 21-41). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Niaounakis, T., & Blank, J. (2017). Inter-municipal cooperation, economies of scale and cost efficiency: an application of stochastic frontier analysis to Dutch municipal tax departments. Local Goverment Studies, 43(4), 533-554.
OECD. (2014). OECD Regional Outlook: Regions and Cities: Where Policies and People Meet. OECD Publishing.
Pevcin, P. (2017). The Evidence on the Existence of Economies of Scale in Local Government Units. EBEEC Conference Proceedings The Economies of Balkan and Eastern Europe Countries in the Changed World (s. 379-384). KnE Social Sciences.
Plata-Díaz, A. M., Zafra-Gómez, J. L., Pérez-López, G., & López-Hernández, A. M. (2014). Alternative management structures for municipal waste collection services: The influence of economic and political factors. Waste Management, 34, 1967-1976.
Reingewertz, Y. (2012). Do municipal amalgamations work? Evidence from municipalities in Israel. Journal of Urban Economics, 72, 240-251.
Rydergård, E. H. (2012). Municipal amalgamation Theory, Methodology and International Experiences A Desk Study for the Tuselog Programme. Tuselog.
Savitch, H., & Vogel, R. K. (2017). Bölgecilik ve Kentsel Politika. J. S. Davies, & D. Imbroscio içinde, Kentsel Politika Teorileri (s. 203-236). İstanbul: Litera.
Slack, E., & Bird, R. (2013). Does Municipal Amalgamation Strengthen the Financial Viability of Local Government? A Canadian Example. Atlanta: Georgia State University Andrew Young School of Policy Studies (International Center for Public Policy Working Paper 13-05).
Southwick, L. (2012). Economies of Scale in Local Government: General Government Spending. iBusiness, 4, 265-278.
Steiner, R., & Kaiser, C. (2017). Effects of amalgamations: evidence from Swiss municipalities. Public Management Review, 19(2), 232-252.
Steiner, R., Kaiser, C., & Eythórsson, G. T. (2016). A Comparative Analysis of Amalgamation Reforms in Selected European Countries. S. Kuhlmann, & G. Bouckaert içinde, Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis (s. 23-42). Palgrave Macmillan.
Stewart, J. (2003). Modernising British Local Government: An Assessment of Labour’s Reform Programme. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Swianiewicz, P., Gendźwiłł, A., & Zardi, A. (2017). Territorial reforms in Europe: Does size matter? . European Union and Council of Europe.
Tavares, A. F. (2018). Municipal Amalgamations and Their Effects: A literature review. Miscellanea Geographica-Regional Studies on Development, 22(1), 5-15.
Tavares, A., & Rodrigues, M. (2018). The Effects of Sub-Municipal Amalgamations on Turnout: Testing the Rational Voter Hypothesis. European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference. Universität Hamburg.
Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416- 424.
Yaslıkaya, R. (2019). Yerel Yönetimlerde Ölçeği Büyütmenin Siyasi Sonuçları: Avrupa’da Belediye Birleşmeleri Üzerinden Bir İnceleme. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 52(1), 33-65.

ISSN: 2667-5617
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 6 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2006
Yayıncı: ASOS Eğitim Bilişim Danışmanlık Otomasyon Yayıncılık Reklam Sanayi ve Ticaret LTD ŞTİ