Vergi Esnekliğinin Kamu Harcamaları Üzerindeki Etkisi: Seçili OECD Ülkeler İçin Panel Veri Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, vergi esnekliğinin kamu harcamaları üzerindeki etkisi 7 OECD ülkesi (Kanada, İzlanda, Letonya, Litvanya, Lüksemburg, Hollanda ve İsviçre) için analiz edilmiştir. Panel veri analizi yöntemine dayanan çalışma 1997-2016 yılarını kapsamaktadır. Çalışmada bağımlı değişken olarak kamu harcamaları, bağımsız değişkenler olarak ise vergi esnekliği, tüketici fiyat endeksi ve nüfus artış oranı kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada öncelikle kullanılacak modeli belirlemek üzere Breusch-Pagan Lagrange Çarpanı testi kullanılarak tesadüfi etkiler modeli ile EKK modeli arasında hangisinin daha uygun olacağı test edilmiş olup çıkan sonuçlar tesadüfi etkiler modelinin daha uygun olduğunu göstermektedir. Sabit etkiler modeli ile tesadüfi etkiler modeli içerisinden daha uygun olanı test etmek üzere hausman testi yapılmış olup elde edilen test istatistikleri nihai olarak tesadüfi etkiler modelinin uygun olduğu yönündedir. Tesadüfi etkiler modeli esas alınarak modelde yer alabilecek sorunları tespit etmek üzere; Baltagi ve Li (1991), Born ve Breitung (2016) ve Bhargava, Franzini ve Narendranathan (1982)’ın Durbin-Watson otokorelasyon testi ve Levene, Brown ve Forsythe (1974) değişen varyans testleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ayrıca modelin yatay kesit bağımlılığı Pesaran(2004) testi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hem oto-korelasyon hem de değişen varyans ve yatay kesit bağımlılığın varlığı tespit edilmiş olup seriler arasındaki ilişki Driscroll ve Kraay (1998) standart hatalar ile tahmin edilmiştir. Yapılan tahminler neticesinde vergi esnekliğinin ve nüfus artış oranının kamu harcamalarını pozitif yönde etkilediği (artırdığı), tüketici fiyat endeksinin ise kamu harcamalarını negatif yönde etkilediği (azalttığı) tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• vergi esnekliği
• kamu harcamaları
• GSYH
• Panel veri analizi

Effect of Tax Elasticity on Public Expenditures: Panel Data Analysis for Selected OECD Countries

Abstract

In this study, the impact of tax elasticity on public expenditures was analyzed for 7 OECD countries (Canada, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Switzerland). The study based on panel data analysis method covers the years 1997-2016. In this study, public expenditures is used as dependent variable and tax flexibility, consumer price index and population growth rate are used as independent variables. In order to determine the model to be used firstly, the Breusch-Pagan Lagrange Multiplier test was used to test which of the random effects model and the OLS model would be more appropriate, and the results show that the random effects model is more suitable. A Hausman test was conducted to determine the model that is more suitable between the fixed effects model and the random effects model, and the test statistics obtained are ultimately shows that the random effects model is appropriate. In order to identify the problems that may be included in the model based on the random effects model; The Balbingi and Li (1991), Born and Breitung (2016) and Bhargava, Franzini and Narendranathan (1982) Durbin-Watson autocorrelation tests and Levene, Brown and Forsythe (1974) heteroscedasticity tests were performed. In addition, the cross-sectional dependency of the model was performed with Pesaran (2004) test. The relationship between the series was estimated by Driscroll and Kraay (1998) standard errors, since both auto-correlation and heteroscedasticity and the presence of cross-sectional dependence were detected. As a result of the estimations made, it has been determined that tax flexibility and population growth rate affect (increase) positively, and the consumer price index negatively affects (decreases) public expenditures.

References

1. Adejare, A.D. ve Akande, S.S. (2017), “The Impact of Personal Income Tax on Government Expenditure in Oyo State”. Journal of Account and Financial Management, 2(4), 635-643
2. Avcı, N. (1998), Bütçe ve Para Politikalarının Makroekonomik Etkileri. Devlet Bütçe Uzmanlığı Araştırma Raporu, Ankara.
3. Baltagi, B.H. ve Li, Q. (1991), “A Transformation That Will Circumvent The Problem of Autocorrelation in an Error-Component Model”. Journal of Econometrics, 48(3), 385-393.
4. Bhargava, A., Franzini, L., ve Narendranathan, W. (1982), “Serial Correlation and The Fixed Effects Model”. The Review of Economic Studies, 49(4), 533-549.
5. Born, B. ve Breitung, J. (2016), “Testing for Serial Correlation in Fixed-Effects Panel Data Models”. Econometric Reviews, 35(7), 1290-1316.
6. Breusch, T.S. ve Pagan, A. (1980), “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification Tests in Econometrics”. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239-253.
7. Brown, M.B. ve Forsythe, A.B. (1974). “The Small Sample Behavior of Some Statistics Which Test The Equality of Several Means”, Technometrics, 16, 129-132.
8. Buchanan, J.M. (1967), The Fiscal Illusion, In Public Finance in Democratic Process: Fiscal Institutions and Individual Choice. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

9. Bunescua, L. ve Comaniciua, C. (2013), “Tax Elasticity Analysis in Romania: 2001 – 2012”. Procedia Economics and Finance, 6, 609-614.
10. Conrad, E. (1997), Expenditure Lags, Inflation and Real Purchasing Power of Government, Macroeconomic Dimensions of Public Finance”. (Ed). M. I. Blejer, T. Ter-Minassian, Routledge, London, 235-251.
11. Craig, E.D. ve Heins, A.J. (1980), “The Effect of Tax Elasticity on Public Spending”. Public Choice, 33, 267-275.
12. DiLorenzo, T.J. (1982), “Tax Elasticity and the Growth of Local Public Expenditure”. Public Finance Quarterly, 10(3), 385-392.
13. Driscoll, J.C. ve Kraay, A.C. (1998), “Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation with Spatially Dependent Panel Data”. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549-560.
14. Dollery, B. E. ve Worthington, A.C. (1995), “State Expenditure and Fiscal Illusion in Australia: A Test of the Revenue Complexity, Revenue Elasticity and Flypaper Hypotheses”. Economic Analysis and Policy, 25(2), 125-140.
15. Ekici, M. S. (2009), “Vergi Gelirlerini Etkileyen Ekonomik ve Sosyal Faktörler”. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(30), 200-223.
16. Feenburg, D.R. ve Rosen, H.S. (1986), “Tax Structure and Public Sector Growth”. Journal of Public Economics, 32, 185-201.
17. Ford, E. (2013), “The Effects of Fiscal Policy on Output in Belize”. Master of Science (MSc), University of the West of England.
18. Gemmell, N., Morrissey, O. ve Pinar, A. (1998), “Taxation, Fiscal Illusion and the Demand for Government Expenditures In The UK: A Time-Series Analysis”. School of Economics Discussion Paper, 98/10.
19. Gergerlioğlu, U. (2016), “Mali Yanılsama Olgusunun Kavramsal Boyutu”. Vergi Sorunları Dergisi, 338, 122-128.
20. Güler, H. (2017), “Ücretlilerden Kesilen Gelir Vergisinin Türk Vergi Sistemi Üzerindeki İstikrar Etkisi”. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(4), 161-168.
21. Indraratna, Y. (2009), “The Measurement of Tax Elasticity in Sri Lanka: A Time Series Approach”. Staff Studies, 33(1), pp.73–110.
22. Levin, A., Lin C.F. ve Chu C.S.J. (2002), “Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties”. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24.
23. Li, M. (2012), “The Effects of Elasticity on Government Revenue of China”. Martin School Public Policy and Administration University of Kentucky.
24. Mansfield, C.Y. (1972), “Elasticity and Buoyancy of a Tax System: A Method Applied to Paraguay”. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 19(2), 425‐446
25. Misiolek, W.S. ve Elder, H.W. (1988), “Tax Structure and the Size of Government: An Empirical Analysis of the Fiscal Illusion and Fiscal Stress Arguments”. Public Choice, 57, 233-245.
26. Oates, W.E. (1975), “Automatic Increases in Tax Revenues: The Effect on the Size of the Public Budget”, In W.E Oates (ed) Financing the New Federalism: Revenue Sharing Conditional Grants and Taxation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
27. Osoro, N. ve Leuthold, J. (1994), “Changing Tax Elasticities Over Time: The Case of Tanzania”. African Development Review, African Development Bank, 6(1), 31-40.
28. Patinkin, D. (1993), “Israel’s Stabilization Program of 1985, or Some Simple Truths of Monetary Theory”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), ss.103-128.
29. Pesaran, M. H. (2004), General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels.
30. Patnaik, D. ve Yaji, V. (2018), “Assessing the Effects of Tax Elasticity on Government Spending”. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 8(5), 70-76.
31. Singh, K. (2015), “Elasticity of State Taxes In India”. International Journal of Innovative Social Science & Humanities Research, 2(3), 77-91.
32. Tarı, Recep (2016). Ekonometri. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Yayınları,12. Baskı, Kocaeli.
33. Tatoğlu, F.Y (2017), Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi: Stata Uygulamalı. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul.
34. Tatoğlu, F.Y (2018), Panel Veri Ekonometrisi: Stata Uygulamalı. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul.
35. Twerefou D.F., Fumey A., Assibey, O.E. ve Asmah, E.E. (2010), “Buoyancy and Elasticity of Tax: Evidence from Ghana”. Journal of Monetary and Economic Integration, 10(2), 36-70.
36. Yılancı, V., Şaşmaz, M. Ü. ve Öztürk, Ö. F. (2020), “Türkiye’de Kamu Harcamaları İle Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Frekans Alanda Asimetrik Testinden Kanıtlar”. Sayıştay Dergisi, 31(116), 121-139.