The Relationship Between Public Expenditures and Openness in the MIST Countries

Year 2024, Volume: 26 Issue: 4, 1789 - 1800, 17.12.2024

Şaduman Yıldız

https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.1255755

Abstract

After the Second World War, increases were observed in both public expenditures and openness, and researchers started to investigate the relationship between these two variables. As a result of the investigations, three hypotheses revealing the relationship between public expenditures and openness were developed. These hypotheses are the compensation hypothesis, the efficiency hypothesis, and the deindustrialization hypothesis. According to the compensation hypothesis, there is a positive relationship between openness and public expenditures, and openness increases public expenditures. On the other hand, according to the efficiency hypothesis, there is a negative relationship between public expenditures and openness, and openness reduces public expenditures. Finally, according to the deindustrialization hypothesis, there is no relationship between public expenditures and openness.
In the present study, the effect of openness on public expenditures in the MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey) countries was tested via panel data analysis using annual data for the 1960-2021 period. In this respect, as a result of the LM cointegration test, it was concluded that there was a cointegration relationship between the variables of public expenditures and openness. Afterward, a coefficient estimate was made for the variables with the CUP-FM and BA-OLS tests, and a positive relationship was revealed between the variables of public expenditures and openness. Finally, the result of the Fisher causality test supported the result of the LM cointegration test. Thus, it was concluded that the compensation hypothesis was valid in the MIST countries for the 1960-2021 period.

Keywords

Globalization, Public Expenditures, Openness, Compensation Hypothesis, Efficiency Hypothesis, Panel Data Analysis.

MIST Ülkelerinde Kamu Harcamaları ve Dışa Açıklık Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

İkinci Dünya Savaşı’ndan sonra hem kamu harcamalarında hem de dış açıkta artışlar olduğu görülmüş ve araştırmacılar tarafından bu iki değişken arasındaki ilişki araştırılmaya başlanmıştır. Yapılan araştırmalar sonucunda kamu harcamaları ile dış açıklık arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koyan üç hipotez geliştirilmiştir. Söz konusu hipotezler telafi hipotezi, etkinlik hipotezi ve sanayisizleşme (deindustrialization) hipotezidir. Telafi hipotezine göre dış açıklık ile kamu harcamaları arasında pozitif yönlü ilişki söz konusu olup dış açıklık kamu harcamalarını artırmaktadır. Diğer yandan etkinlik hipotezine göre kamu harcamaları ile dış açıklık arasında negatif yönlü ilişki söz konusu olup dış açıklık kamu harcamalarını azaltmaktadır. Son olarak sanayisizleşme hipotezine göre ise kamu harcamaları ile dış açıklık arasında ilişki söz konusu değildir.
Bu çalışmada MIST (Meksika, Endonezya, Güney Kore ve Türkiye) ülkelerinde dışa açıklığın kamu harcamaları üzerindeki etkisi 1960-2021 dönemi için yıllık veriler kullanılarak panel veri analizi ile test edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda yapılan LM eşbütünleşme testi sonucunda kamu harcamaları ve dışa açıklık değişkenleri arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Daha sonra CUP-FM ve BA-OLS testleri ile değişkenler için katsayı tahmini yapılmış ve kamu harcamaları ile dışa açıklık değişkenleri arasında pozitif yönlü ilişki olduğu ortaya koyulmuştur. Son olarak yapılan Fisher nedensellik testi sonucu da LM eşbütünleşme testi sonucunu destekler nitelikte olup MIST ülkelerinde 1960-2021 dönem aralığında telafi hipotezinin geçerli olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Küreselleşme, Kamu Harcamaları, Dışa Açıklık, Telafi Hipotezi, Etkinlik Hipotezi, Panel Veri Analizi.

References

• Abounoori, E. & Ghaderi, S. (2011). The effect of trade and financial-openness on government size: a case study for MENA. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 2(5), 170-174.
• Altay, A. & Aysu, A. (2013). Efficiency and compensation hypothesis: an empirical investigation in selected. TİSK Academy, 8(15).
• Aydoğuş, İ. & Topçu, M. (2013). An investigation of co-integration and causality between trade openness and government size in turkey. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 3(2), 319-323.
• Bai, J. & Ng, S. (2002). Determining the number of factors in approximate factor models. Econometrica, 70(1), 191-221.
• Bai, J. & Ng, S. (2004). A PANIC attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica, 72, 1127 – 1178.
• Bai, J. & Kao, C. (2005). On the estimation and inference of a panel cointegration model with cross-sectional dependence. In B. Baltagi (ed.), Contributions to Economic Analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Bai, J. & Ng, S. (2010). Panel unit root tests with cross-section dependence: a further investigation. Econometric Theory, 26(4), 1088-1114.
• Benarroch, M. & Pandey, M. (2012). The relationship between trade openness and government size: does disaggregating government expenditure matter? Journal of Macroeconomics, 34 (1), 239-252.
• Breusch, T. & Pagan, A. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47 (1), 239-253.
• Cameron, D.R. (1978). The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis. The American Political Science Review, 72(4), 1243-1261.
• Ceylan, S. & Yılmaz Şahin, B. (2018). “Analysis of Relationship Government Size and Openness: The Case of Turkey”. Journal of Management & Economics, 25(2).
• Demir, C. (2019). Openness and Public Expenditures: A panel data analysis for oecd countries. Kırklareli University Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 80-96.
• Emirmahmutoglu, F. & Kose, N. (2011). Testing for granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28(2011), 870-876.
• Epifani, P. & Gancia, G. (2009). Openness, government size and the terms of trade. Review of Economic Studies, 76(2), 629-668.
• Erauskin, I. (2011). Financial openness, volatility, and the size of productive government. SERIEs, 2 (2), 233-253.
• Garen, J. & Trask, K. (2005). Do more open economies have bigger governments? Another look. Journal of Development Economics,77, 533–551.
• Garrett, G. & Mitchell, D. (2001). Globalization, government spending and taxation in the OECD. European Journal of Political Research, 39, 145–177.
• Gemmel, N., Kneller, R. & Snaz, I. (2008). Foreign insvestment, international trade and the size and structure of public expenditures. European Journal of Political Economy, 24, 151-171. doi: 10.1016/j.ejspoleco.2007.06.004.
• Kimakova, A. (2009). Government size and openness revisited: the case of financial globalization. Kyklos, 62(3), 394-406.
• Liberati, P. (2007). Trade openness, capital openness and government size. Journal of Public Policy, 27(2), 215-2.
• Molana, H., Montagna, C. & Violato, M. (2004). On the causal relationship between trade openness and government size: evidence from 23 oecd countries. Available at SSRN 716164.
• Özek, Y. & Bayat, T. (2020). Testing the validity of effectiveness and compensation effects hypothesis in BRICS countries. Adıyaman University Journal of Social Sciences, (35), 719-741.
• Pesaran, H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics Working Paper, 435.
• Pesaran, M. H. & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50–93.
• Petrou K. (2014). Government size and trade openness using Bayesian model average. http://www.ucy.ac.cy/econ/documents/seminarpapers/2014/Article_1_Draft_2.pdf.
• Ram, R. (2009). Openness, country size, and government size: additional evidence from a large cross-country panel. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 213–218.
• Reese, S. & Westerlund, J. (2016). “PANICCA: Panic on Cross-Section Dependence: A Furter Investigation”. Econometric Theory, 26 (4), 1088-1114.
• Rivas, M. D., Sort, M. S. & Rodrígez, E. S. (2009). The relationship between trade openness and public expenditure. the Spanish case, 1960-2000. 6. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. Facultad de Economía y Empresa.
• Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open economies have bigger governments? Journal of Political Economy, 106 (5), 997–1032.
• Shahbaz, M. Rehman, H.U. & Amir, N. (2010). The impact of trade and financial-openness on government size: a case study of Pakistan. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 6(1), 105-118.
• Shelton, C. A. (2007). The size and composition of government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 91 (11), 2230-2260.
• Şener, S., Bayrakdar, S. & Hacioglu, V. (2015). The analysis for the validity of compensation and efficiency hypotheses in Turkey between 1975 and 2013. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 624-631.
• Taşar, İ. (2016). Testing compensation hypothesis and efficiency hypothesis for Turkey. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 6(2), 15-22.
• Tütüncü, A. & Zengin, H. (2019). Examination of the validity of the compensation and efficiency hypothesis for MINT countries. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 19(1), 81-94.
• Westerlund, J. & Edgerton, D. (2007). A panel boostrap cointegration test. Economic Letters, 97, 185-190. Westerlund, J. (2007). Estimating cointegrated panels with common factors and the forwad rate unbiasedness hypothesis. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 2007, 5(3), 491-522.
• Westerlund, J. & Larsson, R. (2009). A note on the pooling of indivudial PANIC unit roots tests. Econometrics Theory, 25 (6), 1851–1868.
• World Bank (2022). World Development Indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (Date of access: 15.08.2022).
• Zeren, F. & Ergün, S. (2013). Trade openness and government size relationship: panel causality test. Ataturk University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 27(4).