728
Views
38
Downloads |
The role of economic and political factors in budget forecasting errors: evidence from Turkey’s metropolitan municipalities for the period 2011-2022
Berat Kara* 
Article | Year: 2025 | Pages: 273 - 307 | Volume: 49 | Issue: 2 Received: June 14, 2024 | Accepted: September 25, 2024 | Published online: June 7, 2025
|
FULL ARTICLE
FIGURES & DATA
REFERENCES
CROSSMARK POLICY
METRICS
LICENCING
PDF
|
Variable
|
Explanation
|
Acronym
|
|
Revenue forecasting error
|
Annual budget revenue forecasting absolute error
rate
|
REV
|
|
Expenditure forecasting error
|
Annual budget expenditure forecasting absolute error
rate
|
EXP
|
|
Inflation
|
Annual local inflation rate
|
INF
|
|
Unemployment
|
Annual local unemployment rate
|
UNP
|
|
Per capita GDP
|
Annual local per capita GDP
|
GDP
|
|
Export-to-import ratio
|
Local Export-to-import ratio: (Export / Import)
|
EIR
|
|
Population growth rate
|
Annual local population growth rate
|
PGR
|
|
Mayor’s political party
|
“1” if mayor’s political party is right-wing, “0”
otherwise
|
RLP
|
|
Mayor’s re-candidacy
|
“1” if mayor re-candidate for the next election, “0”
otherwise
|
REL
|
|
Municipality election periods
|
“1” if municipality elections were held that year, “0”
otherwise
|
ELC
|
|
Budget surplus
|
“1” if budget surplus, “0” otherwise
|
BDM
|
|
Variable
|
Mean
|
Std. dev.
|
Min.
|
Max.
|
Obs.
|
|
EXP
|
overall
|
0.1887
|
0.1870
|
0.0001
|
1.1190
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
0.0693
|
0.0699
|
0.3068
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
0.1745
|
-0.0971
|
1.0452
|
T
|
12
|
|
REV
|
overall
|
0.1707
|
0.1325
|
0.0021
|
0.7005
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
0.0673
|
0.0729
|
0.3074
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
0.1154
|
-0.0332
|
0.6644
|
T
|
12
|
|
BDM
|
overall
|
0.3555
|
0.4800
|
0
|
1
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
0.2076
|
0
|
0.75
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
0.4358
|
-0.3944
|
1.1888
|
T
|
12
|
|
INF
|
overall
|
18.4078
|
18.4690
|
5.43
|
73.3
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
0.4282
|
17.6466
|
19
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
18.4643
|
4.8787
|
73.1670
|
T
|
12
|
|
UNP
|
overall
|
10.3150
|
3.3335
|
3.6
|
23.4
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
2.8017
|
6.575
|
15.6083
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
1.9351
|
1.6066
|
18.1066
|
T
|
12
|
|
GDP
|
overall
|
10,464.98
|
4,376.786
|
3,043
|
20,883
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
4,301.055
|
3,901.333
|
17,653.08
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
1,339.401
|
5,983.394
|
13,952.64
|
T
|
12
|
|
EIR
|
overall
|
1.4758
|
1.6461
|
0.3546
|
10.4561
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
1.1814
|
0.6403
|
5.3017
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
1.1831
|
-2.6785
|
8.0300
|
T
|
12
|
|
PGR
|
overall
|
14.7243
|
11.1765
|
-23.24
|
39.09
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
8.6468
|
-2.1208
|
29.8908
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
7.3986
|
-13.464
|
48.866
|
T
|
12
|
|
RLP
|
overall
|
0.7444
|
0.4373
|
0
|
1
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
0.3542
|
0
|
1
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
0.2712
|
-0.0055
|
1.3277
|
T
|
12
|
|
REL
|
overall
|
0.5888
|
0.4934
|
0
|
1
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
0.3556
|
0
|
1
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
0.3532
|
-0.3277
|
1.3388
|
T
|
12
|
|
ELC
|
overall
|
0.1666
|
0.3737
|
0
|
1
|
N
|
180
|
|
between
|
|
0
|
0.1666
|
0.1666
|
n
|
15
|
|
within
|
|
0.37375
|
0
|
1
|
T
|
12
|
Note: For all variables: N=180, n=15, T=12. Source: Author’s calculations.
|
REV
|
EXP
|
BDM
|
INF
|
UNP
|
GDP
|
EIR
|
PGR
|
RLP
|
REL
|
ELC
|
|
REV
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXP
|
0.4953
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BDM
|
-0.1505
|
0.0248
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INF
|
0.1057
|
0.4426
|
0.0511
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UNP
|
-0.2229
|
-0.0935
|
0.232
|
0.0323
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GDP
|
0.0362
|
0.3941
|
0.1327
|
0.8105
|
0.0975
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIR
|
0.0329
|
0.0457
|
-0.1073
|
0.0038
|
-0.1091
|
-0.1018
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
PGR
|
0.0476
|
-0.0175
|
0.2151
|
-0.1706
|
0.134
|
-0.0091
|
-0.133
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
RLP
|
-0.0326
|
-0.1492
|
-0.0171
|
-0.1224
|
-0.1905
|
-0.3044
|
-0.1116
|
-0.1572
|
1
|
|
|
|
REL
|
0.0497
|
-0.0384
|
-0.0398
|
-0.0607
|
-0.0893
|
0.0539
|
-0.187
|
0.1035
|
-0.1789
|
1
|
|
|
ELC
|
0.1203
|
0.1016
|
0.0415
|
-0.2056
|
0.1235
|
-0.1068
|
0.0026
|
0.0228
|
-0.0114
|
-0.0808
|
1
|
|
Municipality
|
Category
|
MPE
|
MAPE
|
NoNEP
|
NoPEP
|
|
Istanbul
|
Revenue
|
11.17
|
14.42
|
4
|
8
|
|
Expenditure
|
5.78
|
13.21
|
6
|
6
|
|
Ankara
|
Revenue
|
-4.66
|
12.62
|
8
|
4
|
|
Expenditure
|
-1.97
|
16.88
|
11
|
1
|
|
Izmir
|
Revenue
|
-1.62
|
7.29
|
8
|
4
|
|
Expenditure
|
-7.92
|
11.92
|
11
|
1
|
|
Kocaeli
|
Revenue
|
-3.09
|
13.26
|
7
|
5
|
|
Expenditure
|
-6.72
|
20.91
|
9
|
3
|
|
Bursa
|
Revenue
|
-4.10
|
10.82
|
9
|
3
|
|
Expenditure
|
3.34
|
15.68
|
7
|
5
|
|
Antalya
|
Revenue
|
-12.89
|
30.74
|
9
|
3
|
|
Expenditure
|
-20.06
|
24.61
|
10
|
2
|
|
Konya
|
Revenue
|
-24.40
|
26.35
|
11
|
1
|
|
Expenditure
|
-12.54
|
29.20
|
11
|
1
|
|
Adana
|
Revenue
|
-21.00
|
23.72
|
11
|
1
|
|
Expenditure
|
-18.51
|
18.51
|
12
|
0
|
|
Tekirdag
|
Revenue
|
-7.030
|
20.03
|
7
|
5
|
|
Expenditure
|
-24.99
|
30.68
|
11
|
1
|
|
Gaziantep
|
Revenue
|
-9.11
|
14.14
|
9
|
3
|
|
Expenditure
|
-10.38
|
10.38
|
12
|
0
|
|
Kayseri
|
Revenue
|
2.30
|
20.68
|
8
|
4
|
|
Expenditure
|
-4.95
|
26.25
|
10
|
2
|
|
Sanliurfa
|
Revenue
|
-7.79
|
11.99
|
9
|
3
|
|
Expenditure
|
-15.87
|
15.87
|
12
|
0
|
|
Samsun
|
Revenue
|
-4.95
|
9.74
|
9
|
3
|
|
Expenditure
|
1.17
|
6.99
|
7
|
5
|
|
Ordu
|
Revenue
|
-9.86
|
17.60
|
11
|
1
|
|
Expenditure
|
3.23
|
18.91
|
7
|
5
|
|
Erzurum
|
Revenue
|
-20.52
|
22.64
|
10
|
2
|
|
Expenditure
|
-0.75
|
23.11
|
10
|
2
|
Note: NoNEP: number of negative error periods; NoPEP: number of positive error periods. Source: Author’s calculations based on the Ministry of Treasury and Finance data.
|
Coef.
|
Std. err
|
z
|
P > z
|
[95% Conf. Interval]
|
|
BDM
|
-0.0405
|
0.0198
|
-2.04
|
0.042**
|
-0.0794
|
-0.0015
|
|
INF
|
0.0021
|
0.0010
|
2.08
|
0.037**
|
0.0001
|
0.0040
|
|
UNP
|
-0.0100
|
0.0038
|
-2.62
|
0.009***
|
-0.0176
|
-0.0025
|
|
GDP
|
-0.0004
|
0.0004
|
-0.99
|
0.324
|
-0.0012
|
0.0004
|
|
EIR
|
0.0014
|
0.0068
|
0.21
|
0.831
|
-0.0119
|
0.0148
|
|
PGR
|
0.0018
|
0.0010
|
1.72
|
0.085*
|
-0.0002
|
0.0039
|
|
RLP
|
-0.0265
|
0.0294
|
-0.90
|
0.367
|
-0.0842
|
0.0311
|
|
REL
|
-0.0265
|
0.0228
|
-1.16
|
0.245
|
-0.0713
|
0.0182
|
|
ELC
|
0.0671
|
0.0241
|
2.78
|
0.006***
|
0.0197
|
0.1145
|
|
_cons
|
0.2659
|
0.0614
|
4.32
|
0.000
|
0.1453
|
0.3864
|
|
R-sq
|
within
|
0.1345
|
|
Obs. per group
|
min
|
12
|
|
between
|
0.0939
|
|
avg
|
12
|
|
overall
|
0.1179
|
|
max
|
12
|
|
Number of obs
|
180
|
|
Number of groups
|
15
|
|
Wald chi2(9)
|
25.14
|
|
Prob > chi2
|
0.0028
|
|
sigma_u
|
0.0594
|
|
sigma_e
|
0.1147
|
|
rho
|
0.2114
|
|
Coef.
|
Std. err
|
z
|
P > z
|
[95% Conf. Interval]
|
|
BDM
|
-0.0023
|
0.0269
|
-0.09
|
0.929
|
-0.0551
|
0.0503
|
|
INF
|
0.0046
|
0.0012
|
3.62
|
0.000***
|
0.0021
|
0.0071
|
|
UNP
|
-0.0089
|
0.0043
|
-2.05
|
0.040**
|
-0.0173
|
-0.0004
|
|
GDP
|
0.0001
|
0.0005
|
0.22
|
0.830
|
-0.0008
|
0.0011
|
|
EIR
|
0.0017
|
0.0084
|
0.20
|
0.839
|
-0.0147
|
0.0181
|
|
PGR
|
0.0008
|
0.0012
|
0.70
|
0.482
|
-0.0015
|
0.0033
|
|
RLP
|
-0.0489
|
0.0346
|
-1.41
|
0.158
|
-0.1167
|
0.0189
|
|
REL
|
-0.0221
|
0.0280
|
-0.79
|
0.429
|
-0.0770
|
0.0327
|
|
ELC
|
0.1060
|
0.0334
|
3.17
|
0.002***
|
0.0405
|
0.1715
|
|
_cons
|
0.2063
|
0.0717
|
2.88
|
0.004
|
0.0657
|
0.3469
|
|
R-sq
|
within
|
0.2848
|
|
Obs. per group
|
min
|
12
|
|
between
|
0.1755
|
|
avg
|
12
|
|
overall
|
0.2706
|
|
max
|
12
|
|
Number of obs.
|
180
|
|
Number of groups
|
15
|
|
Wald chi2(9)
|
64.53
|
|
Prob > chi2
|
0.0000
|
|
sigma_u
|
0.0332
|
|
sigma_e
|
0.1569
|
|
rho
|
0.0429
|
|
No
|
Hypothesis
|
Status
|
|
Revenue
|
Expenditure
|
|
1
|
Budgets
are forecasted with a high degree of inaccuracy.
|
Accept
|
Accept
|
|
2
|
Forecasting
errors are mostly in the negative direction.
|
Accept
|
Accept
|
|
3
|
A
budget surplus affects budget forecasting errors.
|
Accept
|
Reject
|
|
4
|
An
increase in inflation affects the forecasting error in a positive direction.
|
Accept
|
Accept
|
|
5
|
An
increase in the unemployment rate affects revenue forecasting errors negatively
and expenditure forecasting errors positively.
|
Accept
|
Accept
|
|
6
|
An
increase in per capita GDP increases errors in a positive direction.
|
Reject
|
Reject
|
|
7
|
As
the export-to-import ratio increases, forecasting errors also increase in a
positive direction.
|
Reject
|
Reject
|
|
8
|
As
the population growth rate increases, forecasting errors also increase in a
positive direction.
|
Accept
|
Reject
|
|
9
|
Mayor’s
political party affiliations affect the forecasting error.
|
Reject
|
Reject
|
|
10
|
Mayor’s
candidacy in the next elections affects revenue forecasting errors negatively
and expenditure forecasting errors positively.
|
Reject
|
Reject
|
|
11
|
Election
periods affect revenue forecasting errors negatively and expenditure
forecasting errors positively.
|
Accept
|
Accept
|
|
(b)
|
(B)
|
(b-B)
|
sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B))
|
|
Fixed
|
Random
|
Difference
|
S.E.
|
|
BDM
|
-0.0426
|
-0.0405
|
-0.0021
|
0.0046
|
|
INF
|
0.0021
|
0.0021
|
0.0000
|
0.0004
|
|
UNP
|
-0.0107
|
-0.0100
|
-0.0006
|
0.0028
|
|
GDP
|
-0.0004
|
-0.0004
|
-0.0000
|
0.0002
|
|
EIR
|
0.0029
|
0.0014
|
0.0015
|
0.0034
|
|
PGR
|
0.0018
|
0.0018
|
-0.0000
|
0.0006
|
|
RLP
|
-0.0316
|
-0.0265
|
-0.0051
|
0.0177
|
|
REL
|
-0.0484
|
-0.0265
|
-0.0218
|
0.0112
|
|
ELC
|
0.0652
|
0.0671
|
-0.0018
|
0.0037
|
|
chi2(8)
|
7.8000
|
|
Prob>chi2
|
0.4531
|
|
(b)
|
(B)
|
(b-B)
|
sqrt(diag(V_b-V_B))
|
|
Fixed
|
Random
|
Difference
|
S.E.
|
|
BDM
|
-0.0184
|
-0.0023
|
-0.0161
|
0.0091
|
|
INF
|
0.0050
|
0.0046
|
0.0003
|
0.0008
|
|
UNP
|
-0.0062
|
-0.0089
|
0.0026
|
0.0050
|
|
GDP
|
-0.0001
|
0.0001
|
-0.0002
|
0.0004
|
|
EIR
|
-0.0010
|
0.0017
|
-0.0027
|
0.0066
|
|
PGR
|
-0.0002
|
0.0008
|
-0.0011
|
0.0011
|
|
RLP
|
-0.0625
|
-0.0489
|
-0.0135
|
0.0330
|
|
REL
|
-0.0621
|
-0.0221
|
-0.0400
|
0.0218
|
|
ELC
|
0.1001
|
0.1060
|
-0.0058
|
0.0067
|
|
chi2(8)
|
13.5000
|
|
Prob>chi2
|
0.0957
|
|
Models
|
|
Revenue
|
Expenditure
|
|
Var
|
sd = sqrt(Var)
|
|
Var
|
sd = sqrt(Var)
|
|
REV
|
0.0175
|
0.1325
|
EXP
|
0.0349
|
0.1870
|
|
e
|
0.0131
|
0.1147
|
e
|
0.0246
|
0.1569
|
|
u
|
0.0035
|
0.0594
|
u
|
0.0011
|
0.0332
|
|
chibar2(01)
|
18.8800
|
chibar2(01)
|
3.2800
|
|
Prob > chibar2
|
0.0000
|
Prob > chibar2
|
0.0352
|
|
Models
|
|
Revenue
|
Expenditure
|
|
F (1, 14)
|
0.463
|
2.032
|
|
Prob > F
|
0.507
|
0.176
|
|
Models
|
|
Revenue
|
Expenditure
|
|
Pr
|
0.177
|
0.112
|
|
Average absolute value of the off-diagonal elements
|
0.306
|
0.418
|
Crossmark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the Crossmark logo, the Institute of Public Finance is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur. Clicking on the Crossmark logo will tell you the current status of a document and may also give you additional publication record information about the document.
|
|
June, 2025
II/2025
|
