The determinants of local government performance have long been of interest, and have been empirically investigated in a number of recent studies. A general question in this area is: why have some local governments across the countries achieved high rates of performance whilst the others remained at lower levels? Evidence from the relevant literature indicates that some local governments or municipalities, particularly in developed countries, achieve very good performance. Others, in particular those from underdeveloped or developing, have very little or almost no performance.

This research empirically investigates the budgeting conditions in North Cyprus and evaluate how budgeting conditions vary from one municipality to the other in the five major municipalities; Lefkosa, Magusa, Girne, Guzelyurt and Iskele over the period 2004Q1 to 2012Q4. Two types of methodologies are conducted. First; it empirically investigates the determinants of local government deficit by using cointegration techniques. The Johansen co-integration and The Vector Error Correction model (VECM) are applied to test the effect of each element such as own-source revenue, grants, expenditures and debt services on the budget deficit. Second, the study test the convergence hypothesis if similar regions within the country converge to the same long-run steady state by considering five major Cypriot municipalities in the North Cyprus economy.

The results from the empirical analysis on budget deficit findings show that there is evidence of a long-run relationship between general deficit and its determinants. The evidence of causality is found from expenditure and debt to general deficit for Lefkosa municipality. There is unidirectional causality from grant and revenue through deficit for Magusa municipality. Third empirical analysis on convergence introduced that the municipalities with the lowest number of people per staff, commonly diverge from the group mean.

Adam Smith, with “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” published in 1776 is unanimously hailed as the founder of economics as a social science and also of “economic liberalism” or “capitalism” as it is called to contrast it with “socialism”, the latter propagated by K. Marx at a later date.

The group of economists that followed A.Smith, including such notable names as D.Ricardo, N.W.Senior, John Stuart Mill, culminating in Alfred Marshall (1890: Principles of Economics) is called the “Classical School” or alternately the “Manchester School” to refer to their place of origin. Their macroeconomic system is called the “Classical System”. Having accepted the Malthusian law of population (T.Robert Malthus: 1798 Essays on the Principle of Population) D. Ricardo had come up with a model in which growth eventually comes to a halt, moving to that point, however, all along at full employment equilibrium.This was also in line with the views of Adam Smith. Marshall had introduced the concept of elasticities and used the partial method of analysis. In contrast, Leon Walras, in his “Eléments d’Economie Pure ou Theorie de La Richesse Sociale” used the general equilibrium approach to prove that the economy arrives automatically to full employment equilibrium, following Adam Smith and the Classical School.

This book offers a summary of the basic views and conclusions of Adam Smith concerning economic regime, as is also followed by the rest of the members of the Classical School: In a milieu of perfect competition prevailing in all the markets or sectors of the economy, including the labor market, full employment equilibrium will be achieved automatically. This equilibrium will, therefore, also maximize the welfare of the workers because the market wage rate, with no intrusions from the government or the unions, will have ensured full employment. Hence, there is no need for interventionism, that is, for the state to intervene prices, wages, channeling of investments and economic decisions in general.

ÖNSÖZ’den

Yönetimde karar verme günümüzde otel işletmeleri için de birinci derecede önem taşıyan bir konu haline gelmiştir. Nitekim bazı bilim insanları, yönetim ile karar verme sürecini, eş anlamda tutacak kadar ileri gitmişlerdir. Çünkü yönetici, yönetimdeki planlama, örgütleme, yöneltme, koordinasyon ve denetim işlevlerini yerine getirirken sürekli bir biçimde karar alma durumundadır. Diğer bir ifade ile karar verme, ayrı bir yönetim faaliyeti olmaktan çok, bütün yönetim faaliyetlerine temel teşkil eden bir unsurdur. Karar verme, bir sorunun çözümüne ilişkin olası yollardan en uygun olanın seçilmesi olarak tanımlanabilir. Herhangi bir konuda karar verme yönetimin özüdür, esasıdır.

Yönetim sürecinin niteliği karar verme süreci tarafından belirlenir. Yönetim sürecinin tüm diğer nitelikleri karar vermeye bağlıdır; karar verme ile örülmüş, bütünleşmiştir. Karar vermek, sorunu çözmek için yöneticinin yargıda bulunmasıdır. Yönetim, kararla başlar, kararla biter.