SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2

Analysis of Variables Affecting Municipal Borrowing with Quantile Regression in Turkey

Halil SERBES
Mine AYDEMİR
Özhan ÇETİNKAYA
Nuran BAYRAM ARLI
Pages
139–154
Publication Date
2022-04-28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The present study demonstrated that the proposals and policies developed on the municipal debt could have different determinants for municipalities with varying levels of debt.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study aimed to determine the variables that affect municipal borrowing in Turkey and analyze them using the quantile regression.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this analysis, municipal debt was analyzed for five quantiles (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th ve 90th), and it was observed that various variables explained the debt in different quantiles.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The present study demonstrated that the proposals and policies developed on the municipal debt could have different determinants for municipalities with varying levels of debt.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Municipality · Borrowing · Fiscal Determinants

Abstract

The present study aimed to determine the variables that affect municipal borrowing in Turkey and analyze them using the quantile regression. In this analysis, municipal debt was analyzed for five quantiles (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th ve 90th), and it was observed that various variables explained the debt in different quantiles. Some variables are significant in all quantiles and could explain the municipal debt, while certain variables were not significant in various quantiles. The findings show that per capita budget expenditure has a significant and positively correlated per capita municipal debt in all five quantiles; expenditure commitment rate in four, and non-interest fiscal capacity rate in the first two quantiles. Per capita tax revenue variable was also significant and negatively correlated with per capita municipal debt in all five borrowing groups. However, population and per capita capital expenditure variables were found insignificant in almost five quantiles. The present study demonstrated that the proposals and policies developed on the municipal debt could have different determinants for municipalities with varying levels of debt.

🔖

Cite This Article

SERBES, H., AYDEMİR, M., ÇETİNKAYA, Ö., ARLI, N. B. (2022). Analysis of Variables Affecting Municipal Borrowing with Quantile Regression in Turkey. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2, 139–154. https://ajindex.com/articles/751822

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Acar, Y. (2019). Does Flypaper Effect Exist? New Evidence from Turkish Municipalities. Sosyoekonomi, 27(3955), 68. Akai, N. & Sakata, M. (2002). Fical Decentralization Contributes to Economic Growth: Evidence from State-Level Cross-Section Data for the United States. Journal of Urban Economics, 52(1), 93-108.
  2. Arıkboğa, Ü. (2016). Revenue Structure of Municipalities in Turkey: Problems and Solution Proposals. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 13(33), 276-297.
  3. Ataay, F. & Güney, A. (2004). Yerelleşme ve Kalkınma Sorunu: Kamu Yönetimi Reformu Üzerine Değerlendirme. Mülkiye Dergisi, 28(243), 131-146.
  4. Balaguer-Coll, M. T., Prior, D. & Tortosa-Ausina, E. (2016). On the Determinants of Local Government Debt: Does One Size Fit All? International Public Management Journal, 19(4), 513-542.
  5. Bali, B. B. (2006). Mali Desantralizasyon Sürecinde Yerel Yönetimlerin Borçlanması: Bir Teorik Çerçeve Denemesi. (Ed. Ayşe Güner; Serdar Yılmaz), In Mali Yerelleşme: Teori ve Uygulama Üzerine Yazılar, İstanbul: Güncel Publishing: 149-177.
  6. Bellot, N. J., Ma, L. Selva, M. & Menendez, L. G. (2017). Determinants of Sub-Central European Government Debt. The Spanish Review of Financial Economics, 15(2), 52-62.
  7. Benito, B. & Bastida, F. (2004). The Determinants of the Municipal Debt Policy in Spain. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 16(4), 492-525.
  8. Blöchliger, H. & King, D. (2006). Fiscal Autonomy of Sub-Central Governments, OECD WPs on Fiscal Federalism, No. 2: OECD Publishing. Cropf, R. & George, W. (1998). The Determinants of municipal Debt Policy: A Pooled Time-Series Analysis. Environment and Planning Government Policy, 16(2), 211-224.
  9. Çebi, C. (2015). Bütçe Harcama Katılığı. Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası Ekonomi Notları, 23, 1-13.
  10. Çetinkaya, Ö. (2020).
  11. Mahalli İdareler Maliyesi, Bursa: Ekin Publishing. Çetinkaya, Ö. & Demirbaş, T. (2004). Laws Relating to Municipal Borrowing in Turkey, Structure of Loans and Examining of This Structure. Akdeniz IIBF Journal, 3(8), 18-37.
  12. Demirbaş, T. (2015). An Examination of Fiscal Rules for Local Government. U.U. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 8(2), 1-32.
  13. Ebel, R. & Yılmaz, S. (2002). On the Measurement and Impact of Fiscal Decentralization, Policy Research WP No. 2809: The World Bank. Ehalaiye, D., Botica-Redmayne, N. & Laswad F. (2017). Financial Determinants of Local Government Debt in New Zealand, Pacific Accounting Review, 29(4), 512-533.
  14. Eroğlu, E. & Serbes, H.