서울시 재산세 공동과세제도의 자치구 재정건전성 개선효과 분석: 광역시 자치구와의 비교를 중심으로

Abstract

Since 2008, Seoul has been operating the property tax-sharing system in order to ease the financial gap among 25 administrative districts. This system has contributed to mitigating financial imbalance among the administrative districts but it also has created revenue changes since property tax accounts for the largest portion of own revenue sources. These changes can affect administrative district's fiscal soundness. This study analyzes how the property tax-sharing system has affected fiscal soundness using a DID(difference in difference) method between administrative districts in Seoul and Six metropolitan cities. Here fiscal soundness is classified into the following three aspects:(1) the ratio of operating expenses in total expenses, (2) the ratio of own project/business expenses in total expenses, and (3) the ratio of own general revenues in total general revenues. For the purpose of comparing with Seoul's administrative districts, three comparison groups are employed as follows: (1) 15 administrative districts in Busan (2nd largest city in Korea), (2) 44 administrative districts in six metropolitan cities (excluding Seoul), and (3) 25 administrative districts selected among Since 2008, Seoul has been operating the property tax-sharing system in order to ease the financial gap among 25 administrative districts. This system has contributed to mitigating financial imbalance among the administrative districts but it also has created revenue changes since property tax accounts for the largest portion of own revenue sources. These changes can affect administrative district's fiscal soundness. This study analyzes how the property tax-sharing system has affected fiscal soundness using a DID(difference in difference) method between administrative districts in Seoul and Six metropolitan cities. Here fiscal soundness is classified into the following three aspects:(1) the ratio of operating expenses in total expenses, (2) the ratio of own project/business expenses in total expenses, and (3) the ratio of own general revenues in total general revenues. For the purpose of comparing with Seoul's administrative districts, three comparison groups are employed as follows: (1) 15 administrative districts in Busan (2nd largest city in Korea), (2) 44 administrative districts in six metropolitan cities (excluding Seoul), and (3) 25 administrative districts selected among the 44 administrative districts using a quasi-experimental design. According to DID results, the property tax-sharing system did not make any contribution to either an increase in the ratio of own project/business expenses in total expenses or an increase in the ratio of own general revenues in total general revenues. However, the system has contributed to an increase in the ratio of operating expenses in total expenses. As a conclusion, it can be interpreted that the system has promoted available resources and financial flexibility in administrative district's finance.