Türkiye'de Yerel Yönetim Harcamalarının İllerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Seviyesine Etkileri

Thesis Type: Doctorate

Institution Of The Thesis: Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Turkey

Approval Date: 2021

Thesis Language: Turkish


Consultant: Selçuk İpek


Reaching serious levels of socio-economic development differences among provinces may lead to production levels to reamin below capacity, loss of prosperity, internal migration problem, unplanned urbanization and even internal confusion in the country. For these reasons, it is extremely important to identify and eliminate the differences in socio-economic development that exist among the provinces. Steps to eliminate these differences are largely taken by the public sector, while the private sector tries to be guided by the implemented state policies. Here, the public sector and the central government, local government, social security organization, state economic enterprises and other public institutions are expressed as a whole, and it is seen that these units play a more or less role in the socio-economic development process. Local governments, which are one of these units, continue to exist with the main purpose of meeting the local and common needs of the local people, and contribute to the development of human capital stock with their non-formal education services, improvement of production and trade with infrastructure investments, and positive change of the physical environment. For this reason, local governments play a key role in increasing the livability of the province through services provided in the socio-cultural field and on the socio-economic development of the province as a whole. In order to analyze this relationship in detail, panel data analysis was selected as a method and five different econometric models were established. As a result of the analysis made using the data between 2013-2017 for 81 provinces in Turkey, there is a statistically significant positive relationship between investment expenditures and “human capital” and “socio-economic development”; also between current expenditures and “production and trade in the province” and “livability of the province”.