Kamu Harcamaları ve Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki Asimetrik Nedensellik İlişkisi: Geçiş Ekonomileri Örneği

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 60, 317 - 338, 28.04.2024

Emre Bulut , Dilek Çil

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.02.15

Cited By: 1

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı 12 geçiş ekonomisi için Dumitrescu & Hurlin (2012) panel asimetrik nedensellik analiziyle kamu harcamaları ile vergi gelirleri arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisinin araştırılmasıdır. Dumitrescu & Hurlin (2012) asimetrik nedensellik analizi bulgularına göre kamu harcamaları ve vergi gelirleri arasında asimetrik nedensellik ilişkisinin varlığı tespit edilmiştir. Buna göre, pozitif bileşenler arasında çift yönlü, negatif bileşenler arasında ise kamu harcamalarından vergi gelirlerine doğru tek yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisinin varlığı belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulguların önemi, geçiş ekonomileri için pozitif ve negatif şoklara ilişkin sonuçların farklılık arz etmesi ve pozitif şoklara ilişkin sonucun mali senkronizasyon, negatif şoklara ilişkin sonucun ise harcama-vergi hipotezini desteklediğinin belirlenmiş olmasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kamu Harcamaları, Vergi Gelirleri, Panel Asimetrik Nedensellik, Geçiş Ekonomileri

Asymmetric Causality Relationship Between Public Expenditures and Tax Revenues: Transition Economies Case

Öz

The study aims to investigate the causality relationship between public expenditures and tax revenues with Dumitrescu & Hurlin's (2012) panel asymmetric causality analysis for 12 transition economies. Dumitrescu & Hurlin's (2012) asymmetric causality analysis findings determined an asymmetric causality relationship between public expenditures and tax revenues. Accordingly, it was determined that there is a bidirectional causality relationship between the positive components and a unidirectional causality relationship between the negative components from public expenditures to tax revenues. The significance of the findings is that the results for positive and negative shocks differ for transition economies, and it has been determined that the result for positive shocks supports fiscal synchronisation. In contrast, the result for negative shocks supports the expenditure-tax hypothesis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Public Expenditures, Tax Revenues, Panel Asymmetric Causality, Transition Economies

Kaynakça

• Abual-Foul, B. & H. Baghestani (2004), “The Causal Relation Between Government Revenue and Spending: Evidence from Egypt and Jordan”, Journal of Economics and Finance, 28(2), 260-269.
• Akbulut, H. & A.B. Yereli (2016), “Kamu Gelirleri ve Kamu Harcamaları Nedensellik İlişkisi: 2006-2015 Dönemi için Türkiye Örneği”, Sosyoekonomi, 24(27), 103-120.
• Anderson, W. et al. (1986), “Government Spending and Taxation: What Causes What?”, Southern Economic Journal, 52(3), 630-639.
• Aregbeyen, O. & B. Insah (2013), “A Dynamic Analysis of The Link Between Public Expenditure and Public Revenue in Nigeria and Ghana”, Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4(4), 18-26.
• Athanasenas, A. et al. (2014), “Government Spending and Revenues in The Greek Economy: Evidence from Nonlinear Cointegration”, Empirica, 41(2), 365-376.
• Ay, H.M. & E. Talaşlı (2008), “Ülkelerin Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Seviyeleri ve Vergi Yapıları Arasındaki İlişki”, Maliye Dergisi, 154, 135-155.
• Aysu, A. & D. Bakırtaş (2018), “Kamu Harcamaları ve Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki Asimetrik Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 51, 1-19.
• Baffes, J. & A. Shah (1994), “Causality and Comovement Between Taxes and Expenditures: Historical Evidence from Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico”, Journal of Development Economics, 44(2), 311-331.
• Baghestani, H. & R. Mcnown (1994), “Do Revenues or Expenditures Respond to Budgetary Disequilibria?”, Southern Economic Journal, 61(2), 311-322.
• Bağcı-Aydoğdu, A. & E. Sever (2022), “Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Kaynaklarına Göre Vergi Türleri ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi”, Sosyoekonomi, 30(51), 261-282.
• Barro, R.J. (1974), “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?”, Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1095-1117.
• Blackley, P.R. (1986), “Causality Between Revenues and Expenditures and The Size of The Federal Budget”, Public Finance Quarterly, 14(2), 139-156.
• Bohn, H. (1991), “Budget Balance Through Revenue or Spending Adjustments?: Some Historical Evidence for The United States”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 27(3), 333-359.
• Bolat, S. & M. Belke (2015), “Fiscal Assessment in The Tax-Spending Nexus: A Tale of Central and Eastern European Countries”, International Conference on Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Public Finance, Prag.
• Bozoklu, Ş. & V. Yılancı (2013), “Finansal Gelişme ve İktisadi Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Gelişmekte Olan Ekonomiler İçin Analiz”, DEÜ İİBF Dergisi, 28(2), 161-187.
• Buchanan, J.M. & R.E. Wagner (1977), Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes, New York: Academic Press.
• 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 (Finance A Uver), 59(2), 165-172.
• Chang, T. et al. (2002), “Tax-And-Spend, Spend-And-Tax, or Fiscal Synchronization: New Evidence for Ten Countries”, Applied Economics, 34(12), 1553-1561.
• Cheng, B.S. (1999), “Causality Between Taxes and Expenditures: Evidence from Latin American Countries”, Journal of Economics and Finance, 23(2), 184-192.
• Chowdhury, A.R. (1988), “Expenditures and Receipts in State and Local Government Finances: Comment”, Public Choice, 59(3), 277-285.
• Çetintaş, H. & D. Baigonushova (2016), “Devlet Harcamaları ve Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişkinin Test Edilmesi: Kırgızistan Örneği”, International Conference on Eurasian Economies, Kaposvár.
• 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.
• Darrat, A.F. (2002), “Budget Balance Through Spending Cuts or Tax Adjustments?”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 20(3), 221-233.
• Dökmen, G. (2012), “Kamu Harcamaları ve Kamu Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Panel Nedensellik Analizi”, DEÜ İİBF Dergisi, 27(2), 115-143.
• Dumitrescu, E.I. & C. Hurlin (2012), “Testing for Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels”, Economic Modelling, 29, 1450-1460.
• Ekinci, A.A. (2020), “Causality Between Excise Tax Revenue and Government Spending in OECD Countries”, HÜ İİBF Dergisi, 38(4), 721-741.
• Ewing, B. & J. Payne (1998), “Government Revenue-Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Latin America”, Journal of Economic Development, 23(2), 57-69.
• Ewing, B.T. et al. (2006), “Government Expenditures and Revenues: Evidence from Asymmetric Modeling”, Southern Economic Journal, 73(1), 190-200.
• Famulska, T. et al. (2020), “The Relationship Between Tax Revenue and Public Social Expenditure in The EU Member States”, European Research Studies Journal, 23(4), 136-1156.
• Fasano, U. & Q. Wang (2002), “Testing the Relationship Between Government Spending and Revenue: Evidence from GCC Countries”, IMF Working Papers, WP/02/201, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
• Friedman, M. (1978), “The Limitations of Tax Limitation”, Quadrant, 22(8), 22-24.
• Garcia, M.J. (2012), “The Revenues-Expenditures Nexus: A Panel Data Analysis of Spain's Regions (Running Title: Tax-Expenditure, Expenditure-Tax or Fiscal Synchronization)”, International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 1(1), 24-38.
• Garcia, S. & P.Y. Hénin (1999), “Balancing Budget Through Tax Increases or Expenditure Cuts: Is It Neutral?”, Economic Modelling, 16(4), 591-612.
• Gürdal, T. et al. (2020), “The Relationship Between Tax Revenue, Government Expenditure, And Economic Growth in G7 Countries: New Evidence from Time and Frequency Domain Approaches”, Economic Change and Restructuring, 54(2), 305-337.
• Hatemi-J, A. (2011), “Asymmetric Panel Causality Tests with an Application to the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Economic Performance in Scandinavia”, MPRA Working Papers, No. 55527, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Munich.
• Ho, Y. & C. Huang (2009), “Tax-Spend, Spend-Tax, or Fiscal Synchronization: A Panel Analysis of The Chinese Provincial Real Data”, Journal of Economics and Management, 5(2), 257-272.
• Hondroyiannis, G. & E. Papapetrou (1996), “An Examination of The Causal Relationship Between Government Spending and Revenue: A Cointegration Analysis”, Public Choice, 89(3), 363-374.
• Hoover, K.D. & S.M. Sheffrin (1992), “Causation, Spending, And Taxes: Sand in The Sandbox or Tax Collector for The Welfare State?”, The American Economic Review, 82(1), 225-248.
• Jones, J.D. & D. Joulfaian (1991), “Federal Government Expenditures and Revenues in The Early Years of The American Republic: Evidence from 1792 to 1860”, Journal of Macroeconomics, 13(1), 133-155.
• Joulfaian, D. & R. Mookerjee (1991), “Dynamics of Government Revenues and Expenditures in Industrial Economies”, Applied Economics, 23(12), 1839-1844.
• Kamacı, A. & O. Kurt (2021), “Kamu Harcamaları ile Vergi Gelirleri İlişkisi: Pandemi Öncesi ve Sonrası için bir Değerlendirme”, Journal of Life Economics, 8(4), 455-462.
• Karakas, M. & T. Turan (2019), “The Government Spending-Revenue Nexus in Cee Countries: Some Evidence for Asymmetric Effects”, Prague Economic Papers, 28(6), 633-647.
• Koçak, S. (2021), “Is Exchange Rate Volatility An Important Determinant of Tax Revenues? Evidence From Turkey”, Romanian Economic Journal, 24(81), 33-49.
• Koçak, S. vd. (2022), “Enflasyon, Enflasyon Oynaklığı ve Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki Dinamik İlişkiler: Türkiye Örneği”, Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (36), 209-222.
• Kollias, C. & S. Makrydakis (2000), “Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax? Empirical Evidence from Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland”, Applied Economics, 32(5), 533-546.
• Kollias, C. & S.M. Paleologou (2006), “Fiscal Policy in The European Union: Tax and Spend, Spend and Tax, Fiscal Synchronization or Institutional Separation?”, Journal of Economic Studies, 33(2), 108-120.
• Konukcu-Önal, D. & A.N. Tosun (2008), “Government Revenue-Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Several Transitional Economies”, Economic Annals, 53, 145-56.
• Koren, S. & A. Stiassny (1998), “Tax and Spend, or Spend and Tax? An International Study”, Journal of Policy Modeling, 20(2), 163-191.
• Manage, N. & M.L. Marlow (1986), “The Causal Relation Between Federal Expenditures and Receipts”, Southern Economic Journal, 52(3), 617-629.
• Marlow, M.L. & N. Manage (1987), “Expenditures and Receipts: Testing for Causality in State and Local Government Finances”, Public Choice, 53(3), 243-255.
• Mehrara, M. et al. (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(5), 914-927.
• Miller, S.M. & F.S. Russek (1990), “Co-Integration and Error-Correction Models: The Temporal Causality Between Government Taxes and Spending”, Southern Economic Journal, 57(1), 221-229.
• Musgrave, R.A. (1985), “A Brief History of Fiscal Doctrine”, in: Handbook of Public Economics 1st ed. (1-59), Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.
• Mutascu, M. (2016), “Government Revenues and Expenditures in The East European Economies: A Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Approach”, Eastern European Economics, 54(6), 489-502.
• Narayan, P.K. & S. Narayan (2006), “Government Revenue and Government Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Developing Countries”, Applied Economics, 38(3), 285-291.
• Narayan, P.K. (2005), “The Government Revenue and Government Expenditure Nexus: Empirical Evidence from Nine Asian Countries”, Journal of Asian Economics, 15(6), 1203-1216.
• Owoye, O. (1995), “The Causal Relationship Between Taxes and Expenditures in The G7 Countries: Cointegration and Error-Correction Models”, Applied Economics Letters, 2(1), 19-22.
• Özmen, İ. & S. Bali (2018), “Vergi Gelirleri ve Kamu Harcamaları Arasındaki İlişki: 14 Avrupa Birliği Ülkesinde Asimetrik Panel Nedensellik Testi”, International Congress on Political Economic and Social Studies, Venedik.
• Paleologou, S.M. (2013), “Asymmetries in the Revenue-Expenditure Nexus: A Tale of Three Countries”, Economic Modelling, 30, 52-60.
• Payne, J.E. (1997), “The Tax-Spend Debate: The Case of Canada”, Applied Economics Letters, 4(6), 381-386.
• Payne, J.E. (1998), “The Tax-Spend Debate: Time Series Evidence from State Budgets”, Public Choice, 95(3), 307-320.
• Payne, J.E. (2003), “A Survey of the International Empirical Evidence on The Tax-Spend Debate”, Public Finance Review, 31(3), 302-324.
• Payne, J.E. et al. (2002), “Revenue-Expenditure Nexus in A Transition Economy: Evidence from Croatia”, Privredna Kretanja I Ekonomska Politika, 12(93), 27-37.
• Payne, J.E. et al. (2008), “Turkish Budget Deficit Sustainability and The Revenue-Expenditure Nexus”, Applied Economics, 40(7), 823-830.
• Peacock, A.T. & J. Wiseman (1961), The Growth of Public Expenditure in The United Kingdom, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Ram, R. (1988), “Additional Evidence on Causality Between Government Revenue and Government Expenditure”, Southern Economic Journal, 54(3), 763-769.
• Ross, K.L. & J.E. Payne (1998), “A Reexamination of Budgetary Disequilibria”, Public Finance Review, 26(1), 67-79.
• Saunoris, J.W. & J.E. Payne (2010), “Tax More or Spend Less? Asymmetries in the UK Revenue-Expenditure Nexus”, Journal of Policy Modeling, 32(4), 478-487.
• Sørensen, B.E. et al. (2001), “Output Fluctuations and Fiscal Policy: US State and Local Governments 1978-1994”, European Economic Review, 45(7), 1271-1310.
• Tashevska, B. et al. (2020), “The Government Revenue-Expenditure Nexus in Southeast Europe: A Bootstrap Panel Granger-Causality Approach”, Eastern European Economics, 58(4), 309-326.
• Taylor, M.P. & L. Sarno (1998), “The Behavior of Real Exchange Rates During the Post-Bretton Woods Period”, Journal of International Economics, 46(2), 281-312.
• Trehan, B. & C.E. Walsh (1988), “Common Trends, The Government's Budget Constraint, and Revenue Smoothing”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2-3), 425-444.
• Vamvoukas, G.A. (2011), “The Tax-Spend Debate with An Application to the EU”, Economic Issues, 16(1), 65-88.
• Vamvoukas, G.A. (2012), “Panel Data Modelling and The Tax-Spend Controversy in The Euro Zone”, Applied Economics, 44(31), 4073-4085.
• Von Furstenberg, G.M. et al. (1985), “Have Taxes Led Government Expenditures? The United States as A Test Case”, Journal of Public Policy, 5(3), 321-348.
• Von Furstenberg, G.M. et al. (1986), “Tax and Spend, or Spend and tax?”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(2), 179-188.
• Westerlund, J. et al. (2011), “The Tax-Spending Nexus: Evidence from A Panel of US State-Local Governments”, Economic Modelling, 28(3), 885-890.
• Yılancı, V. vd. (2020), “Türkiye'de Kamu Harcamaları ile Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Frekans Alanda Asimetrik Testinden Kanıtlar”, Sayıştay Dergisi, 31(116), 121-139.
• Zapf, M. & J.E. Payne (2009), “Asymmetric Modelling of The Revenue-Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Aggregate State and Local Government in the US”, Applied Economics Letters, 16(9), 871-876.