Abstract
This chapter presents the findings and models explaining the relationship between decentralization and governance capacity in Turkish local government. The chapter starts with presenting the methodological choices and operationalization of key variables used in the analysis. The chapter tests the hypotheses on the relationship between governance capacities and decentralization, and interprets the findings to address the research questions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Careful readers may have realized in the previous chapter that some opinions shared in the surveys already reflect on these upcoming legislative changes (see the Conclusion section of Chapter 4).
- 2.
‘Total Survey Error = Sampling Error + Coverage Error + Nonresponse Error + Measurement Error’ (Gideon 2012: 40).
- 3.
Ibid.
- 4.
These are ‘tax autonomy’, ‘intergovernmental transfer’, ‘expenditure’, ‘revenue’, ‘tax revenue’, ‘intergovernmental transfer expenditure’, ‘intergovernmental transfer revenue’, ‘user fees’, ‘tax revenue as a share of total revenue’, ‘intergovernmental transfer revenue as a share of total revenue’, ‘balance’, ‘debt’, ‘fiscal rule indicators’, and ‘the recurrent tax on immovable property’.
- 5.
See the Appendices for the details of SEGE index and scores.
- 6.
The value is ‘1’ if the mayor is from AKP, and ‘0’ if the mayor belongs to an opposition party.
- 7.
I would like to thank personally to Furkan Tanrıverdi, Umut Oran, and İbrahim Durak for establishing the contacts inside the political parties.
- 8.
Socio-economic development is measured according to SEGE-2011 index scores.
- 9.
After 2009 local elections, the political distribution of provincial municipalities has been as follows: AKP (Justice and Development Party): 38 provinces; CHP (Republican People’s Party): 11 provinces; MHP (Nationalist Movement Party): 8 provinces; BDP (Peace and Democracy Party): 7 provinces; others: 1 (Sivas) province.
- 10.
See the Data list in Appendices.
- 11.
MOB2 has 21% of missing values, and MOB6 has 17%.
- 12.
The alpha scores give the estimate of reliability, where a score between 0.7 and 0.9 is treated as acceptable and any score lower than 0.5 is interpreted as unacceptable.
- 13.
See the correlation matrix in Table 5.3.
- 14.
This phenomenon happens because LC is so highly correlated with logDec, the inclusion of Inf exposes a relatively small amount of variation that has been previously masked. In order to control whether this argument holds true, a new variable is generated for the residuals between LC and logDec, and I found out that this variable is significantly correlated with Inf and logDec.
- 15.
The thickness of lines is not representing the actual level of influence among the variables rather it suggests that the influence of local capacity on decentralization is higher than government capacity.
References
Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2). https://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/tt2.php.
Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing Data Measured by Individual Likert-Type Items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35.
Creswell, W. J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage.
Gideon, L. (2012). Handbook on Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. New York: Springer.
Goldfrank, B. (2007). The Politics of Deepening Local Democracy: Decentralization, Party Institutionalization, and Participation. Comparative Politics, 39(2), 147–168.
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Uebersax, J. S. (2006). Likert Scales: Dispelling the Confusion. Statistical Methods for Rater Agreement Website. Available at: http://john-uebersax.com/stat/likert.htm. Accessed July 18, 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tan, E. (2019). What Is the Relationship Between Governance Capacity and Decentralization?. In: Decentralization and Governance Capacity . Public Sector Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02047-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02047-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02046-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02047-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)