Download Partnership

Turkey
CDLR
1.
Financial Data on Local Budgets1
1.1.
General, national, local government comparison
Revenues
A. Local
government
budgets,
aggregated2
Municipalities
Affiliated
Institutions of
Municipalities
Special
Provincial
Administrations
Local
Government
Unions
B. National
budget
General Budget
Other Central
government
C. General
government
consolidated
budget
(including lines
A, local
governments,
and line B,
central above
and any other
incorporated in
1
2
national
currency
% GDP
national
currency
% GDP
national
currency
% GDP
national
currency
% GDP
national
currency
2008 final
accounts
2009 final
accounts
2010 final
accounts
2011
estim
ates
38.841.851.000
42.769.943.000
53.762.596.000
4,1
4,5
4,9
25.736.012.000
2,7
26.844.961.000
2,8
5.983.883.000
0,6
7.333.985.000
0,8
7.121.956.000
7.299.672.000
0,7
0,8
-
1.291.325.000
-
0,1
0,2
311.074.971.935
325.518.552.728
254.028.000.000
32,7
34,2
23,0
209.598.471.935
22,1
215.458.340.728
22,6
254.028.000.000
23,0
101.476.500.000
10,7
110.060.212.000
11,6
-
349.916.822.935
368.288.495.728
307.790.596.000
36,8
38,7
27,9
34.233.863.000
3,1
7.459.228.000
0,7
9.752.093.000
0,9
2.317.412.000
% GDP
national
currency
% GDP
national
currency
% GDP
national
currency
% GDP
national
currency
% GDP
Precise scope might be adjusted for individual countries based on data availability.
Total local governments budgets, adding up all levels (tiers)
-
2
national
accounts)
Inflation rate for
respective year, %:
GDP
the
Expenditures
national
currency
A. Local
government
budgets,
aggregated3
10,06
950.534.250.001
6,53
952.558.578.001
6,401.105.101.110.000
2008 final
accounts
2009 final
accounts
2010 final
accounts
45.941.555.000
48.384.191.000
4,8
5,1
30.959.084.000
31.012.132.000
3,3
3,3
8.143.505.000
8.248.029.000
0,9
0,9
6.838.966.000
7.553.284.000
0,7
0,8
2011
estim
ates
53.153.189.000
% GDP
national
currency
Municipalities
5,6
34.474.935.000
% GDP
national
currency
Affiliated
Institutions of
Municipalities
national
currency
% GDP
national
currency
B. National
budget
0,8
8.652.767.000
% GDP
national
currency
Local
Government
Unions
-
1.570.746.000
-
0,9
2.294.549.000
0,2
0,2
339.151.078.569
396.020.545.705
35,7
41,7
227.030.562.569
23,9
268.219.184.705
28,2
112.120.516.000
11,8
127.801.361.000
13,4
385.092.633.569
444.404.736.705
293.628.000.000
% GDP
General Budget
national
currency
Other Central
government
% GDP
national
currency
3
7.730.938.000
% GDP
Special
Provincial
Administrations
C. General
government
consolidated
budget
3,6
% GDP
national
currency
30,9
293.628.000.000
30,9
346.781.189.000
% GDP
Total local governments budgets, adding up all levels (tiers)
Impact of the economic downturn on local government across Europe and responses to it
[CDLR(2011)18]
36,5
3
(including lines
A, local
governments,
and line B,
central above
and any other
incorporated in
national
accounts)
Inflation rate for
respective year, %:
GDP
1.2.
40,5
46,8
10,06
950.534.250.001
6,53
952.558.578.001
the
6,40
1.105.101.110.000
Local Government indebtedness
End 2008
A.
Volume
of
governments
(national currency)
local
debt
Short
term
Long
term
B. Local government payment arrears
(if applicable, according to the
national definition, national currency)
End 2009
End 2010
25.222.230.156 27.800.797.851
32.433.931.001
19.362.925.624 23.408.709.072
32.348.070.000
2.317.166.763
3.017.699.209
3.503.445.000
Please explain in one paragraph:



If the local government payment arrears are a serious problem in your country and
how does the government estimate their size;
o NO
To what extent local government owned companies (providing communal, utility,
transport services etc) influence local governments financial position,
o Affiliated institutions of LGs in these service fields (water sewerage and public
transportation) incurred a budget deficit of 0,1% of GNP.
If local governments in your country use cash or accrual accounting systems.
o Accrual Based Accounting has been in use since the enactment of the recent
Public Financial Reform in 2006.
1.3.
Please provide a breakdown of the local budget revenues by tier and the
main categories of revenues, selected from the list below:
(TL’s thousand)
Executed budgets, in Categ
2008
2009
2010
national currency
a-Own Source Revenues
(tax, fees,contribution
shares to public
9.463.664
10.288.753 12.734.770
Municipalities
expenditures, enterprise
and property revenues
etc.)
Impact of the economic downturn on local government across Europe and responses to it
[CDLR(2011)18]
4
b- Shares from the
individuals and
institutions (main item is
tax shares from the
central government
budget)
c- Donations and aids
from the central
government institutions
14.110.642
14.937.757
189.638
118.950
18.520681
122.015
d- Other transfers
184.925
181.937
122.308
74.233
1.664.835
1.243.331
5.469.802
6.426.436
416.371
470.549
0
0
94.994
387.656
1.300
1.604
1.416
47.740
748.270
663.302
1.692.799
1.949.396
2.989.676
3.258.627
e- Project assistance
f- Capital Revenues
Affiliated Institutions of
Municipalities
a-Own Source Revenues
(tax, fees,contribution
shares to public
expenditures, enterprise
and property revenues
etc.)
b- Shares from the
individuals and
institutions (main item is
tax shares from the
central government
budget)
c- Donations and aids
from the central
government institutions
d- Other transfers
e- Project assistance
f- Capital Revenues
Special Provincial
Administrations
a-Own Source Revenues
(tax, fees,contribution
shares to public
expenditures, enterprise
and property revenues
etc.)
b- Shares from the
individuals and
institutions (main item is
tax shares from the
central government
budget)
c- Donations and aids
from the central
government institutions
Impact of the economic downturn on local government across Europe and responses to it
[CDLR(2011)18]
244.299
78.283
2.533.815
6.579.010
628.111
0
130.294
750
121.063
589.366
2.434.402
4.110.798
5
d- Other transfers
335.739
159.543
1.290.075
1.228.741
65.397
40.063
e- Project assistance
f- Capital Revenues
Local Government
Unions
a-Own Source Revenues
(tax, fees,contribution
shares to public
expenditures, enterprise
and property revenues
etc.)
b- Shares from the
individuals and
institutions (main item is
tax shares from the
central government
budget)
c- Donations and aids
from the central
government institutions
d- Other transfers
461,755
88.836
141.230
248.415
e- Project assistance
349.104
f- Capital Revenues
1.985
Total local government
a-Own Source Revenues
(tax, fees,contribution
shares to public
expenditures, enterprise
and property revenues
etc.)
b- Shares from the
individuals and
institutions (main item is
tax shares from the
central government
budget)
c- Donations and aids
from the central
government institutions
d- Other transfers
e- Project assistance
f- Capital Revenues
461.768
2.122.376
33.383
562.741
138.012
229.134
250.739
1.134.779
2.007
20.465.887
15.681.736
17.840.246
16.219.812
17.446.538
3.179.314
3.518.807
615.658
977.551
1.087.100
1.413.683
1.653.682
3.336.188
1.731.648
1.333.119
2.690.268
Impact of the economic downturn on local government across Europe and responses to it
[CDLR(2011)18]
21.721.206
4.461.947
6
a)
Own taxes and fees (with their main components shown, if possible)
Main local taxes are: Announcement and Advertisement Tax, Entertainment Tax,
Communication Tax, Electricity and Coal Gas Consumption Tax, Fire Insurance Tax,
Sanitation Tax, Property Tax
 Property Tax,
 Announcement and Advertisement Tax,
 Entertainment Tax,
 Communication Tax,
 Electricity and Coal Gas Consumption Tax,
 Fire Insurance Tax,
 Environment Cleaning Tax.
Main local fees are:
 Occupation Fee,
 Fee for Working License on Holidays,
 Brokerage Fee,
 Animal Slaughter Examination and Inspection Fee,
 Measuring and Weighing Devices Examination Fee,
 Building Construction Fee,
 Fees related to Land Development Planning and Control,
 Registration and Certified Copy Fee,
 Spring Water Fee,
 Business License Fee,
 Examination, License and Report Fee,
 Health Certificate Fee
b)
Major shared revenues (explaining the allocation mechanisms)
 The major shared revenues are the tax revenues from the General Budget.
The sharing mechanism is based on population, economic development level,
rural population, local tax collections and, the area of the province. These factors
are used in calculations with various assigned weights.
c)
General-purpose transfers from the central government
 The law on Appropriation of Shares to Municipalities and Special Provincial
Administrations from General Budget Tax Revenues determines the principles.
Shares from general budget tax revenues constitute the most important source
of revenue of LGs.
d)
Earmarked transfers from central government to finance social functions
(education, health, social welfare)
 There are some conditional, irregular aids provided by various Ministries (Ministry
of Interior, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Public
Works and Settlement, Prime Ministry Emergency Support Programme) to
municipalities in changing amounts year by year but the amount is very limited
in comparison with the general purpose transfers.
e)

Other earmarked transfers, specific grants
These types of transfers are given mainly on the Project basis. For example for
Impact of the economic downturn on local government across Europe and responses to it
[CDLR(2011)18]
7
the KOYDES project some 7 billion TL was transferred to LGs since the
beginning of the project in 2005 till today.
f)
Funds for capital investments in the local budgets:
 EU funds, other international: Grants and funds can be provided
from EU, international financial institutions (IBRD, EBRD, IDB,
IFC etc.) and bilateral financial institutions (EIB,KFW, JICA,
etc.)
 central budget, special extra-budgetary, Yes



loans, bonds: LGs can issue loans and bonds (both in domestic
and external markets) for for investment purposes.
asset sales, operational surplus: Yes but it does not constitute a
big amount.
private resources. This source relatively minor portion of the
local government finances in Turkey.
PART II: RESPONSES, OUTCOMES AND CHALLENGES
2. Responses in Policy and Practice
2.1. Revenue policy
2.1.1. Have there been any changes in response to the economic downturn in:
o
o
The assignment of revenue sources to local government budgets? There would
be around %30 increase in the revenues of LGs prior to the economic crisis.
Because the Law on Appropriation of Shares to Municipalities and Special
Provincial Administrations from General Budget Tax Revenues (enacted in
2008) aimed at increasing the revenues of LGs by %30. But since general
budget tax revenues decreased because of the economic crisis, the total local
revenues almost kept stable even after the enactment of the law.
The power of local governments to set rates of local taxes, surcharges or fees?
NO
2.1.2. Have local taxes on local business enterprises been subject to change or debate as a
result of the crisis? NO
2.1.3. Has the crisis resulted in any greater impetus for local property taxation, e.g.
increases in rates, improved assessment, and stricter enforcement? NO
2.1.4. Have user charges (e.g. water rates, refuse collection fees, public transport fares)
been subject to tariff increases or extended coverage specifically as a response to the crisis
(as opposed to previous plans or regular indexation)? NO
2.2. Intergovernmental Transfers
2.2.1. Have there been any significant changes in the volume or distribution of
intergovernmental transfers? NO
Impact of the economic downturn on local government across Europe and responses to it
[CDLR(2011)18]
8
2.1.2. Has the expenditure of transfers been subject to more or less conditionality
(“earmarking”)? NO
2.3. Expenditure management
2.3.1. Employment practices. Have levels of staffing or remuneration been affected by the
crisis? NO
2.3.2. What measures have been taken to improve efficiency of local administration and
service provision? Have benchmarking or other processes (such as participatory
budgeting etc.) been introduced? Have measures been taken to improve the
transparency of local budget transactions?
o Public Financial Management and Control Law (2003) mainly aims to ensure
that local governance efficiency and effectiveness, transparent and
accountable management of expenditures, strong internal controls and
external audit, reporting, accounting and sound legislative oversight. For
instance, according to Public Financial Management and Control Law, Ministry
of Finance is responsible for compiling and publishing the fiscal statistics of
local administrations quarterly. Local governments are obliged to submit their
data quarterly to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance (General
Directorate of Public Accounts) has established a module for local
governments in Say2000i, and in 2006 local governments transferred their
data to the Ministry for the first time via Say2000i. The Ministry of Finance will
disseminate the local government statistics quarterly. Until 2007, the data
pertaining to local governments were being compiled by the State Planning
Organisation through surveys.
2.3.3. Has social assistance been subject to greater targeting to low income households and
individuals? NO
2.3.4. Have there been any attempts to rationalise the network of service providers such as
schools or hospitals funded by local budgets? NO
2.3.5. Technological solutions: what measures have been adopted to improve the energy
efficiency of local government assets and services? To what extent have local governments
adopted “smart” control systems, such as using electronic sensors to regulate output? NO
2.3.6. Have innovative or modernised processes, solutions and/or technologies been
discussed, considered or introduced in order to increase efficiency or decrease expenditure?
NO
2.4. Cooperation
Have local governments sought to reduce overhead costs and increase economies of scale
through:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Inter-municipal cooperation NO widespread use.
Collaboration with upper tiers of government NO
Partnership with the private sector NO
Community and civil society participation? NO
2.5. Legal and regulatory framework
Impact of the economic downturn on local government across Europe and responses to it
[CDLR(2011)18]
9
Have there been any changes in the laws and regulations assigning responsibilities between
tiers of government (between national and local tiers, or between regional and municipal
governments) or the standards at which they must be performed? NO
3. Outcomes
3.1. What has been the overall impact of the crisis and the policy responses it has triggered
on the level of services provided by local and regional government? N/A
3.2. Is there any evidence that the crisis or the policy responses have had adverse
consequences for the performance of local and regional economies (e.g. through
deterioration in the quality and cost of local infrastructure)? NO
3.3. Similarly can the crisis or policy responses be shown to have led to a decline in the
degree of social inclusion, social cohesion and/or equality (e.g through a deterioration in
educational opportunity for ethnic minorities, a reduction in the availability of acceptable and
affordable housing, or worsening access to public services by people with disabilities). Is
there a perception that these effects have had an impact on the implementation of human
rights at the local level? NO
3.4. Can you suggest any examples (local cases, legislative and regulatory changes) best
illustrating such impacts which would be worth developing as case material in your country.
Issue
3.1. Service management
3.2. Impact on economic development
3.3. Impact on social inclusion, social
cohesion and/or equality
Example, topic for a case study
3.5. What kind of innovative processes in providing better or cost effective local services in
your respective country warrant to be put in limelight as “advanced practice” for other
countries as well? None.
4. Challenges
In response to these outcomes, have local and regional governments developed partnerships
with private enterprises, civil society organisations and/or local universities and research
institutions:

to promote the recovery of the local economy or Not very common.

to mitigate social distress and exclusion? NO
Can you again suggest examples of such partnerships which would be worth further
investigation and dissemination?
Impact of the economic downturn on local government across Europe and responses to it
[CDLR(2011)18]