Devlet Harcamaları ve Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Doğrusal Olmayan Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı (NARDL)

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 36, 33 - 48, 30.04.2018

Taner Turan , Mesut Karakaş

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2018.02.02

Cited By: 4

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türkiye’de merkezi yönetim faiz dışı harcama ve gelirleri arasındaki ilişki Doğrusal Olmayan Sınır Testi yaklaşımı (NARDL) ve 1998:Ç1-2016:Ç4 dönemi verileri kullanılarak incelenmektedir. Bu yaklaşım gelir ve harcamalardaki pozitif ve negatif şokların ayrıştırılması ve analiz edilmesine, asimetrik bir etki olup olmadığının incelenmesine olanak vermektedir. Ampirik bulgularımız uzun dönemde faiz dışı harcamalardaki pozitif bir şokun gelirlerin artmasına, gelirlerdeki bir pozitif (negatif) şokun ise faiz dışı harcamaların artmasına (düşmesine) neden olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu nedenle incelenen dönemde Türkiye’de genel olarak mali senkronizasyon hipotezinin desteklendiği, ayrıca uzun dönemde gelirlerdeki değişikliklerin faiz dışı harcamalar üzerinde asimetrik bir etkide bulunduğu sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Asimetri, Mali Senkronizasyon, Harcama-Gelir İlişkisi, Vergile-Harca

The Relationship between Government Spending and Revenue: Nonlinear Bounds Testing Approach (NARDL)

Öz

This paper examines the relationship between the central government spending (excluding interest payments) and revenue by means of Nonlinear Bounds Testing approach for 1998:Q1-2016:Q4 period. This approach enables us to make a distinction between the positive and negative shocks. Our empirical findings indicate that a positive change in the government spending has a positive impact on the revenue while the positive (negative) changes in the revenue lead to an increase (decrease) in the government spending in the long run. This supports the presence of fiscal synchronization hypothesis in Turkey. Moreover, it seems that there exists an asymmetric effect of changes in the revenue on the government spending in the long run.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Asymmetry, Fiscal Synchronization, Spend-Revenue Nexus, Taxspend

Kaynakça

• Al-Qudair, K.H.A. (2005), “The Relationship Between Government Expenditure and Revenues in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Testing for Cointegration and Causality”, JKAU, 19(1), 31–43.
• Al-Zeaud, H.A. (2012), “Government Revenues and Expenditures: Causality Tests for Jordan”, Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(7), 193-204.
• Akar, S. (2014), “Türkiye’de Bütçe Gelir ve Harcamalarının Ampirik Analizi”, BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar, 8(1), 141-159.
• Akbulut, H. & A.B. Yereli (2016), “Kamu Gelirleri ve Kamu Harcamaları Nedensellik İlişkisi: 2006-2015 Dönemi İçin Türkiye Örneği”, Sosyoekonomi, 24(27), 103-119.
• Akçağlayan, A. & M. Kayıran (2010), “Türkiye’de Kamu Harcamaları ve Gelirleri: Nedensellik İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(2), 129-146.
• Akça, H. & C. Bilgin (2013), “Harca-Vergilendir veya Vergilendir-Harca: Türkiye Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma”, Business and Economics Research Journal, 4 (1), 143-157.
• Akçoraoğlu, A. (1999), “Kamu Harcamaları, Kamu Gelirleri ve Keynesçi Politikalar: Bir Nedensellik Analizi”, Gazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 2, 51-65.
• Aksu, H. & S. Künü & G. Bozma (2017), “Mali Senkronizasyon Hipotezi Türkiye İçin Geçerli mi?” Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 31(2), 311-324.
• Anderson, W. & M.S. Wallace & J.T. Warner (1986), “Government Spending and Taxation: What Causes What?”, Southern Economic Journal, 52(3), 630-639.
• Apergis, N. & J.E. Payne & J.W. Saunoris (2012), “Tax-spend nexus in Greece: are there asymmetries?”, Journal of Economic Studies, 39(3), 327-336.
• Arısoy, İ. & İ. Ünlükaplan (2011), “Katma Değer Vergisi, Enflasyon Oranı ve Kamu Harcamaları Arasındaki İlişkilerin Dinamik Analizi”, Sosyoekonomi, 2, 93-112.
• Aslan, M. & M. Taşdemir (2009), “Is Fiscal Synchronization Hypothesis Relevant for Turkey? Evidence from Cointegration and Causality Tests with Endogenous Structural Breaks”, Journal of Money, Investment and Banking, 12, 14-25.
• Athanasenas, A. & C. Katrakilidis & E. Trachanas (2014),”Government spending and revenues in the Greek economy: evidence from nonlinear cointegration”, Empirica, 41, 365-2.
• Baghestani, H., & R. McNown (1994), “Do Revenues or Expenditures Respond to Budgetary Disequilibria?”, Southern Economic Journal, 60, 311–322.
• Baharumshah, A.Z. & A.A. Jibrilla & A. Sirag & H.S. Ali & I.M. Muhammad (2016),“Public Revenue-Expenditure Nexus in South Africa: Are there Asymmetries?” South African Journal of Economics, 84(4), 520-537.
• Barro, R.J. (1974), “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?”, Journal of Political Economy, 82, 1095-1117.
• Barro, R.J. (1979), “On the determination of the public debt”, Journal of Political Economy, 81, 940-71.
• Bolat, S. (2014), “The Relationship between Government Revenues and Expendiıtures: Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis on European Countries” The Economic Research Guardian, 4(2), 2-17.
• Buchanan, J. & R. Wagner (1977), Democracy in Deficit, New York: Academic Press.
• Buchanan, J. & R. Wagner (1978), “Dialogues Concerning Fiscal Religion”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 4(3), 627-636.
• Chang, T. & G. Chiang (2009), “Revisiting the Government Revenue-Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from 15 OECD Countries Based On the Panel Data Approach”, Czech Journal of Economics and Finance, 59(2), 165-172.
• Chang, T. & W.R. Liu & S.B. Caudill (2002), “Tax-and-spend, spend-and-tax, or fiscal synchronization: new evidence for ten Countries”, Applied Economics, 34, 1553-561.
• Cheng, B.S. (1999), “Causality Between Taxes and Expenditures: Evidence from Latin American Countries”, Journal of Economics and Finance, 23(2), 184-192.
• Çavuşoğlu, T. (2008), “Türkiye’de Kamu Gelirleri ve Harcamaları Arasındaki İlişki Üzerine Ekonometrik Bir Analiz”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 143–160.
• Çetintaş, H.& D. Baigonushova (2016), “Devlet Harcamaları ve Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişkinin Test Edilmesi: Kyrgyzistan Örneği”, International Conference on Eurasian Economies, Kaposvar, Hungary, 29-31 August, 773-785.
• Darrat, A.F. (1998), “Tax and Spend, or Spend and Tax? An Inquiry into the Turkish Budgetary Process”, Southern Economic Journal, 64(4), 940-956.
• Dökmen, G. (2012), “Kamu Harcamaları ve Kamu Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Panel Nedensellik Analizi”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 27(2), 115-143.
• Ewing, B.T. & J.E. Payne & M.A. Thompson & O.M. Al-Zoubi (2006), “Government Expenditures and Revenues: Evidence from Asymmetric Modeling”, Southern Economic Journal, 73(1), 190-200.
• Friedman, M. (1978), “The Limitations of Tax Limitation”, Policy Review, 7-14.
• Günaydın, İ. (2004), “Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5 (2), 163-181.
• Hasan, M. & I. Lincoln (1997), “Tax then Spend or Spend then Tax? Experience in the UK, 1961-93”, Applied Economics Letters, 4(4), 237-239.
• Hatemi-J, A. & G. Shukur (1999), “The causal nexus of government spending and revenue in Finland: a bootstrap approach”, Applied Economics Letters, 6(10), 641-644.
• Hondroyiannis, G. & E. Papapetrou (1996), “An examination of the causal relationship between government spending and revenue: a cointegration analysis”, Public Choice, 89, 363-74.
• Hussain, H.M. (2004), “On the Causal Relationship between Government Expenditure and Tax Revenue in Pakistan”, Lahore Journal of Economics, 9(2), 105-117.
• Lojanica, N. (2015), “Government Expenditure and Government Revenue – The Causality on the Example of the Republic of Serbia”, Management International Conference, Portoroz, Slovenia, 28-30 May, 79-90.
• Konukcu-Önal, D., & A.N. Tosun (2008), “Government Revenue- Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Several Transitional Economies.” Economic Annals, 53, 145–156.
• Mehrara, M. & M. Pahlavani & Y. Elyasi (2011), “Government Revenue and Government Expenditure Nexus in Asian Countries: Panel Cointegration and Causality”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(7), 199-207.
• Meltzer, A.H. & S.F. Richard (1981), “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government”, Journal of Political Economy, 89, 914–927.
• Musgrave, R. (1966), “Principles of Budget Determination.” H. Cameron and W. Henderson (ed.), Public Finance: Selected Readings içinde, New York: Random House, 15-27.
• Narayan, P.K. & S. Narayan (2006), “Government Revenue and Government Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Developing Countries”, Applied Economics, 38(3), 285‐291.
• Obeng, S. (2015), “A Causality Test of the Revenue-Expenditure Nexus in Ghana”, MPRA Paper, No. 63735.
• Paleologou, S-M. (2013), “Asymmetries in the Revenue–Expenditure Nexus: A Tale of Three Countries”, Economic Modelling, 30, 52–60.
• Payne, J.E. (2003), “A survey of the international empirical evidence of the tax-spend debate”, Public Finance Review, 31, 302-24.
• Peacock, A. & J. Wiseman (1979), “Approaches to the Analysis of Government Expenditure Growth”, Public Finance Review, 7, 3-23.
• Pesaran, M.H. & Y. Shin & R.J. Smith (2001), “Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289–326.
• Rahman, S.M.A. & M.A. Wadud (2014), “Tax and Spend, Spend and Tax, Fiscal Synchronization or Fiscal Neutrality: Evidence from Bangladesh”, The International Journal of Applied Economics and Finance, 8, 98-108.
• Saunoris, J.W. & J.E. Payne (2010), “Tax more or spend less? Asymmetries in the UK revenue-expenditure nexus”, Journal of Policy Modeling, 32, 478-487.
• Shin, Y. & B. Yu & N. Greenwood-Nimmo (2014), “Modelling Asymmetric Cointegration and Dynamic Multipliers in a Nonlinear ARDL Framework” R.Sickels and W.Horrace (ed.), Festschriftin Honor of Peter Schmidt : Econometric Methods and Applications içinde, New York: Springer, 281–314.
• Subhani, M.I. & S.A. Hasan & A. Osman & T. Rafiq (2012), “An Investigation of Granger Causality between Tax Revenues and Government Expenditures”, European Journal of Scientific Research, 68(3), 340-344.
• T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı, Genel Devlet Konsolide İstatistikleri,<www.kalkinma.gov.tr>, 17.05.2017.
• T.C. Maliye Bakanlığı Muhasebat Genel Müdürlüğü, <www.muhasebat.gov.tr>, 14.05.2017.
• T.C. Merkez Bankası, Elektronik Veri Dağıtım Sistemi, <www.evds.gov.tr>, 15.05.2017.
• Tiwari, A.K. & M. Mutascu (2016), “The revenues-spending nexus in Romania: a TAR and MTAR approach”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 735-745.
• Yamak, R. & Z. Abdioğlu (2012), “Ampirik Bağlamda Toplam ve Alt Kalemler Bazında Kamu Harcamaları ve Kamu Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye Örneği”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 30(1), 173-192.
• Yay, T. & H. Tastan (2009), “Growth of Public Eexpenditures in Turkey during the 1950-2004 Period: An Econometric Analysis”, Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 4, 101-118.
• Yinusa, O.G. & O.B. Aworinde & I.O. Oseni (2017), “The Revenue-Expenditure Nexus in Nigeria: Asymmetric Cointegration Approach”, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 1, 47-61.
• Terzi, H. & S. Oltulular (2006), “Harcama-Vergi Geliri Hipotezi: Türkiye Örnegi”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 20(2), 1-18.
• Vamvoukas, G.A. (2012), “Panel data modelling and the tax-spend controversy in the euro zone”, Applied Economics, 44(31), 4073-4085.
• Wahid, A.N.M. (2008), “An Empirical Investigation on the Nexus between Tax Revenue and Government Spending: The Case of Turkey”, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 16, 46-51.
• Wildavsky, A. (1988), The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman.
• Zapf, M. & J.E. Payne (2009), “Asymmetric modeling of the revenue-expenditure nexus: evidence from aggregate state and local government in the US”, Applied Economics Letters, 16, 871-6.