OECD Ülkelerinde Vergi Takozu ve İşsizlik Arasındaki İlişkinin Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, vergi takozunun işsizlik üzerindeki etkisini OECD ülkeleri örneği üzerinden analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Vergi takozu; işverenin bir çalışanı istihdam etmek için katlandığı toplam işgücü maliyeti ile çalışanın net eline geçen ücret arasındaki farkı ifade etmektedir. Bu fark gelir vergisi, sosyal güvenlik primleri ve diğer zorunlu kesintiler gibi unsurlardan oluşmakta olup, işgücü üzerindeki mali yükü yansıtır. Yüksek vergi takozları işverenlerin istihdam maliyetini artırarak istihdam yaratma kararlarını olumsuz etkileyebilir ve işsizliğin yapısal boyutunu derinleştirebilir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, 2000–2023 dönemine ait panel veriler ışığında OECD ülkelerinde vergi takozu ile işsizlik oranları arasındaki ilişkiyi ampirik olarak incelemektedir. Westerlund ve Edgerton (2007) LM bootstrap eşbütünleşme ve Shin vd 1999 PMG modelleri kullanılarak yapılan analizler, OECD ülkelerinde vergi takozunun ve sosyal güvenlik katkı ödemelerinin işsizlik oranları üzerinde anlamlı ve pozitif bir etkisi olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, vergi politikalarının istihdam üzerindeki dolaylı etkilerini göz önünde bulundurarak daha dengeli ve istihdam dostu vergi reformlarının gerekliliğine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• vergi takozu
• işsizlik
• panel veri analizi

Analysis of the Relationship Between Tax Wedge and Unemployment in OECD Countries

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of the tax wedge on unemployment, focusing on the context of OECD member countries. The concept of the tax wedge encapsulates the gap between the full cost of labor borne by employers and the net earnings retained by employees after deductions for taxes and social security contributions. It serves as a critical indicator of the fiscal burden on labor and its potential distortionary effects on employment dynamics. This disparity comprises components such as income tax, social security contributions, and other compulsory deductions, collectively representing the fiscal burden placed on labor. High tax wedges may increase the cost of employment for employers, negatively affect their decisions to create jobs, and deepen the structural dimension of unemployment. Within this framework, the research conducts an empirical analysis of how the tax wedge correlates with unemployment levels across OECD member states, utilizing panel data spanning from 2000 to 2023. By integrating the LM bootstrap cointegration method developed by Westerlund and Edgerton (2007) with the Pooled Mean Group (PMG) estimator formulated by Shin et al. (1999), the study uncovers a statistically significant and positive association between unemployment rates and two key fiscal variables: the tax wedge and social security contributions. The findings suggest that increases in these labor-related costs consistently contribute to higher unemployment levels across the countries analyzed. These findings underscore the long-term distortionary effects of labor-related fiscal burdens on employment dynamics within the OECD context. These results highlight the importance of implementing more balanced, labor-market-friendly tax reforms that consider the indirect consequences of taxation on employment outcomes.

Keywords

• Tax wedge
• unemployment
• panel data analysis

References

1. Akalin, G. (2021). OECD ülkelerinde vergi takozu ve işsizlik ilişkisi. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 7(1), 37-49. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.815697
2. Anspal, E., & Võrk, A. (2007). Labour market institutions and productivity in the new EU member states. PRAXIS Center for Policy Studies, Working Paper, No. 27.
3. Bassanini, A., & Duval, R. (2006). Employment patterns in OECD countries: Reassessing the role of policies and institutions. OECD Economics Department, Working Paper, No. 486. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/846627332717
4. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
5. Catalano, M., & Pezzolla, E. (2015). The interaction between the labour tax wedge and structural reforms in Italy. Revue de l’OFCE, 141, 185-222.
6. Daveri, F., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Unemployment, growth and taxation in industrial countries. Economic Policy, 15(30), 48–104. http://doi:10.1111/1468-0327.00057
7. Deskar-Škrbić, M., Drezgić, S., & Šimović, H. (2018). Tax policy and labour market in Croatia: effects of tax wedge on employment. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31(1), 1218-1227. http://10.1080/1331677X.2018.1456359
8. Dolenc, P., & Laporšek, S. (2010). Tax wedge on labour and its effect on employment growth in the European Union. Prague Economic Papers, 19(4), 344-358. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.381

9. Festa, A. (2015). Employment and productivity: The role of the tax wedge. EuroEconomica, 34(2), 139-150.
10. Giray, F., & Çınar, M. (2017). The impact on unemployment of social security contributions: The empiricial analysis in Turkey. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(6), 142-150. DOI:10.26417/ejms.v6i1.p142-150
11. Góra, M., Radziwiłł, A., Sowa, A., & Walewski M. (2006). Tax wedge and skills: Case of Poland in international perspective. Centre for Social and Economic Research Reports, No.64, Poland: CASE.
12. Kalaš, B., Zelenović, V., & Andrašić, J. (2022). Relation between tax wedge and employment rate: The case of OECD countries. Industrija, 50(2), 7-20. http://10.5937/industrija50-40175
13. Karakuş, M., & Atabey, A. Ö. (2023). Vergi takozu ve genç işsizlik ilişkisi: G7 ülkelerine yönelik fourier panel nedensellik analizi. İçinde Yılmaz, M (Ed.), İstihdam, İşsizlik, İşgücü Alanında Güncel Çalışmalar (ss. 37-50). İstanbul: Eğitim Yayınevi.
14. Liko, E. (2025). Employment and tax burden on labor: A legal implication. Corporate Law & Governance Review, 7(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.22495/clgrv7i1p2
15. McCoskey, S., & Kao, C., (1998). A residual-based test of the null of cointegration in panel data. Econometric Reviews, 17(1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474939808800403
16. Nickell, S., & Layard, R. (1999). Labour Market Institutions and Economic Performance. In Ashenfelter, O. & Card, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics (pp. 3029–3084). Amsterdam: North Holland.
17. Nickell, S. (2003). Employment and Taxes. CESifo Working Paper, No. 1109.
18. OECD (2025a). Average tax wedge. Retrieved June 25, 2025, from https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?tm=DF_TW_COMP&pg=0&snb=1&vw=tb&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_TAX_WAGES_COMP%40DF_TW_COMP&df[ag]=OECD.CTP.TPS&df[vs]=&pd=%2C&dq=.AV_TW..S_C0.AW100._Z.A&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false
19. OECD (2025b). Social security contributions (SSC). Retrieved June 25, 2025, from https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&tm=comparative%20tables%20tax%20revenue%20data&pg=0&hc[Topic]=&hc[Unit%20of%20measure]=&snb=153&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_REV_COMP_OECD%40DF_RSOECD&df[ag]=OECD.CTP.TPS&dq=OECD_REP%2BGBR%2BUSA%2BTUR%2BCHE%2BSWE%2BESP%2BSVN%2BSVK%2BPRT%2BPOL%2BNOR%2BNZL%2BNLD%2BMEX%2BLUX%2BLTU%2BLVA%2BKOR%2BJPN%2BITA%2BISR%2BIRL%2BHUN%2BISL%2BGRC%2BDEU%2BFRA%2BFIN%2BEST%2BDNK%2BCZE%2BCRI%2BCOL%2BCHL%2BCAN%2BBEL%2BAUT%2BAUS..S13.T_2000..PT_B1GQ.A&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&pd=1991%2C2023&vw=tb&lb=bt
20. Öztürk, Ö. F. (2021). Impact of tax wedge and social security contributions on the unemployment: Evidence from selected EU transition economies. Uluslararası Bankacılık Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 59-77.
21. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 1229.
22. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross- section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
23. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
24. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23116064
25. Šeparović, A. (2009). The influence of the tax wedge on unemployment in OECD countries in comparison with Croatia. Financial Theory and Practice, 33(4), 449-463.
26. Shin, Y., Pesaran, M. H., & Smith R. P. (1998). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series, No 16.
27. Stähler, N. (2019). Who benefits from using property taxes to finance a labor tax wedge reduction? Journal of Housing Economics, 46, 1-15.
28. Todorović, J. Đ., Đorđević, M., & Ristić, M. (2018). The Tax wedge as the determinant of unemployment: A comparative overview of OECD countries and Serbia. 18 October 2018. In 49th International Scientific Conference Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis in Economics. University of Niš, Faculty of Economics.
29. Trpeski, P., & Tashevska, B. (2012). Labour tax wedge in the republic of Macedonia-trends and international comparison. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 14(2), 571-585.
30. Tvrdon M. (2011). Relationship between taxation of labour and employment in the European Union: mathematical simulation, International Journal of Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 5(3), 274-281.
31. Yılancı, V., Yavuz, H., & İnce, T. (2019). Seçilmiş OECD ülkelerinde vergi takozu işsizlik ilişkisi. Maliye Dergisi, 176, 286-297.
32. Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
33. World Bank (2025). Unemployment, total (% of total labour force). Retrieved June 25, 2025, from https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&type=metadata&series=NY.GDP.PCAP.CD#