The Relationship Between Transfer Expenditures and Income Inequality: A Comparative Evaluation via Panel Causality Analysis

Abstract

This study aims to determine the relationship between transfer expenditures and income inequality for 39 countries with different development level and to reveal whether this relationship differs according to the income inequality level of the countries. For this purpose, the countries used in the analysis are divided into two groups considering the income inequality levels. The relationship between these variables is investigated by the Emirmahmutoğlu-Kose (2011) panel causality test, which is based on the Toda-Yamamoto (1995) test. According to the results of the analysis, while there is a one-way causality relationship from transfer expenditures to income inequality in countries with high income inequality; there is a bilateral causality in countries with low income inequality. In addition, with this method, which makes it possible to achieve country-specific results, it can be said that suggestions regarding transfer policies should be made on a country basis, not on a general level.

Keywords

• Transfer Expenditures
• Income Inequality
• Causality Analysis

Transfer Harcamaları ve Gelir Eşitsizliği İlişkisi: Panel Nedensellik Analizi ile Karşılaştırmalı Bir Değerlendirme

Abstract

Bu çalışmada farklı gelişmişlik düzeyine sahip olan 39 ülkede transfer harcamaları ile gelir eşitsizliği arasındaki ilişkinin tespit edilmesi ve bu ilişkinin ülkelerin gelir eşitsizliği seviyesine göre farklılık gösterip göstermediğinin ortaya koyulması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda analizde kullanılan ülkeler gelir eşitsizlik seviyeleri göz önüne alınarak iki gruba ayrılmaktadır. İlgili değişkenler arasındaki ilişki Toda–Yamamoto (1995) testine dayanan Emirmahmutoğlu-Köse (2011) panel nedensellik testi ile araştırılmaktadır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre gelir eşitsizliği yüksek olan ülkelerde transfer harcamalarından gelir eşitsizliğine doğru tek yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi bulunurken; gelir eşitsizliği düşük olan ülkelerde çift yönlü nedensellik olduğuna dair kanıtlar elde edilmektedir. Ayrıca ülkelere özgü sonuçların da elde edilmesini mümkün kılan bu yöntem ile transfer politikalarına ilişkin önerilerin genel nitelikte değil ülke bazında yapılması gerektiği söylenebilir.

Keywords

• Transfer Harcamaları
• Gelir Eşitsizliği
• Nedensellik Analizi

References

1. ALVAREDO, F., CHANCEL, L., PİKETTY, T., SAEZ, E., ve ZUCMAN, G. (Eds.). (2018). World Inequality Report 2018. Belknap Press.
2. ARNOLD, B. J., ve Rodrigues, C. F. (2015), Reducing Inequality and Poverty in Portugal. OECD Publishing, Paris.
3. BASTAGLİ, F., COADY, D., GUPTA, S. (2012). Income Inequality And Fiscal Policy. Imf Staff Discussion Note.
4. BECKFİELD, J. (2006). Integration And Income Inequaliy. American Sociological Reiew, 71(6), 964-985.
5. BEEGHLEY, L., DWYER, J. W. (1989). Income Transfers And Income Inequality. Population Research And Policy Review, 8, 119-142.
6. BRADY, D., BOSTİC, A. (2015). Paradoxes Of Social Policy: Welfare Transfers, Relative Poverty, And Redistribution Preferences. American Sociological Review, 80(2), 268-298.
7. BREİTUNG, J. (2000). The Local Power Of Some Unit Root Tests For Panel Data. Advances İn Econometrics 15. Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, And Dynamic Panels, (Ed. Baltagi), Jaı Press, Amsterdam, 161-178.
8. BREUSCH, T. S., A. R. PAGAN (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test & İts Applications To Model Specification İn Econometrics. The Review Of Economic Studies, 47 (1): 239.

9. CROSS, P. (2015). Giving And Taking Away How Taxes And Transfers Address Inequality İn Canada. Macdonald-Laurer Institute.
10. DİCKEY, D.A., FULLER, W.A. (1981). Likelihood Ratio Statistics For Autoregressive Time Series With A Unit Root. Econometrica, 49, 1057–1079.
11. EMİRMAHMUTOĞLU, F., KÖSE, N. (2011). Testing For Granger Causality İn Heterogeneous Mixed Panels. Economic Modelling, 28, 870-876.
12. FERRARİNİ, T., SJOBERG, O. (2010). Social Policy And Health: Transition Countries İn A Comparative Perspective. International Journal Of Social Welfare, 19, 60-88.
13. FİSHER, R.A. (1932). Statistical Methods For Research Workers. 4th Edition, Oliver And Boyd, Edinburgh.
14. HADRİ, K. (2000). Testing For Stationarity İn Heterogeneous Panel Data. Econometric Journal, 3, 148-161.
15. HEİSZ, A., MURPHY, B. (2016). The Role Of Taxes And Transfers İn Reducing Income Inequality. Income Inequality: The Canadian Story, 5.
16. IM, K.S., PESARAN, M.H., SHİN, Y. (2003). Testing For Unit Roots İn Heterogeneous Panels. Journal Of Econometrics, 115, 53-74.
17. IMF (2014). Government Finance Statistics Manual 2014.
18. JOUMARD, I., PİSU, M., BLOCH, D. (2013). Tackling Income Inequality: The Role Of Taxes And Transfers. Oecd Journal: Economic Studies, 2012, 37-70.
19. KORPİ, W., PALME, J. (1998). The Paradox Of Redistribution And Strategies Of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, And Poverty İn The Western Countries. American Sociological Review , 661-687.
20. KOZUHAROV, S., PETKOVSKİ, V. (2018). The Impact Of Social Transfers On Inequality Measured By Gini Index: The Example Of Macedonia. Utms Journal Of Economics, 9(1), 49-61.
21. LEVİN, A., LİN, C., CHU, C. (2002). Unit Root Tests İn Panel Data: Asymptotic And Finite Sample Properties. Journal Of Econometrics, 108, 1-24.
22. MADZİNOVA, R. (2017). Impact Of Government Spending On Income Inequality. The Annals Of The Uniersity Of Oradea, 210, 210-220.
23. Oecd (2018). Oecd Economic Surveys: Poland 2018. Oecd Publishing, Paris.
24. Oecd (2019a). Oecd Economis Surveys: Denmark 2019. Oecd Publishing, Paris.
25. Oecd (2019b). Oecd Economic Surveys: Ireland 2019. Oecd Publishing, Paris.
26. PERUGİNİ, C., MARTİNO, G. (2008). Income Inequality Within European Regions: Determinants And Effects On Growth. Review Of Income And Wealth, 54(3), 373-406.
27. PESARAN, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests For Cross Section Dependence İn Panels. Cesifo Working Paper, No. 1229, Center For Economic Studies And Ifo Institute (Cesifo), Munich.
28. PESARAN, M. H., ULLAH, A., YAMAGATA, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted Lm Test Of Error Cross-Section Independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11 (1), 105- 127.
29. ROAF, M. J., ATOYAMN, R., JOSHİ, B., KROGULSKİ, M. K. (2014). 25 Years Of Transition: Post-Communist Europe And The Imf: Regional Economic Issues Special Report. Imf, Washington D.C.
30. SANCHEZ, A., PEREZ-CORRAL, A. L. (2018). Government Social Expenditure And Income Inequalities İn The European Union. Hacienda Pública Española, 227(4), 133-156.
31. SMİTH L. V., LEYBOURNE, S., KİM, T. H., NEWBOLD, P. (2004). More Powerful Panel Data Unit Root Tests With An Application To Mean Reversion İn Real Exchange Rates. Journal Of Applied Econometrics, 19, 147–170.
32. SOLT, F. (2009). Standardizing The World Income Inequality Database. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 231-242.
33. STİNE, R.A. (1987). Estimating Properties Of Autoregressive Forecasts. Journal Of The American Statistical Association, 82, 1072–1078.
34. TODA, H.Y., YAMAMOTO, T. (1995). Statistical Inference İn Vector Autoregressions With Possibly Integrated Processes. Journal Of Econometrics, 66, 225-250.
35. ULU, M. İ. (2018). The Effect Of Government Social Spending On Income Inequality İn Oecd: A Panel Data Analysis. International Journal Of Economics Politics Humanities And Social Sciences, 1(3), 184-202.
36. VAUGHAN-WHİTEHEAD, D. (2016). Europe's Disappearing Middle Class?: Evidence from the World of Work. Edwar Elgar Publishing.