Türkiye’de Gelir Dağılımı Eşitsizliği ve İkincil Gelir Dağılımı Arasındaki İlişki: 2006-2024 Döneminde Hatemi-J Asimetrik Nedensellik Testinden Kanıtlar

Abstract

Ekonomik konjonktüre göre vergiler ve transfer harcamalarının ağırlıklandırılmasına yönelik revizyonlarla gelir dağılımı eşitsizliğine müdahale edilmektedir. Bu amaçla çalışmada, Türkiye'de yapısal kırılmalar kapsamında gelir dağılımı eşitsizliği ile vergiler ve transfer haracamaları bileşenleri arasındaki ilişkinin genel eğilimi araştırılmıştır. 2006-2024 döneminde gelir dağılımı ile dolaysız vergiler, dolaylı vergiler, servet vergileri ve transfer harcamaları arasındaki ilişki Hatemi-J (2012) asimetrik nedensellik testiyle analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen ampirik bulgulara göre, dolaysız vergiler ve servet vergileri ile gelir dağılımı eşitsizliği arasında tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi; dolaylı vergiler ve transfer harcamaları ile gelir dağılımı eşitsizliği arasında çift yönlü simetrik ve asimetrik nedensellik ilişkisi mevcuttur. Bu durum, göreceli fiyat yapısındaki dengesizliklerle mücadele etmek için 2006 yılında resmi olarak başlatılan enflasyon hedefleme rejiminden, 2008 küresel krizi ve COVID-19 pandemisinden günümüze kadar uzun süreli yüksek enflasyon döneminde, düşük ve yüksek gelirliler arasında ayrım yapılmaksızın uygulanan yüksek oranlı dolaylı vergilerin özellikle düşük gelirlilerde yol açabileceği refah kaybının transfer harcamalarıyla telafi edilebileceğinin kanıtı niteliğindedir.

Keywords

• Gelir Dağılımı Eşitsizliği
• İkincil Gelir Dağılımı
• Hatemi-J Asimetrik Nedensellik Testi
• Türkiye

Supporting Institution

Çalışma, kamusal, özel, ticari nitelikte ya da kar amacı gütmeyen herhangi bir kurumdan destek alınmadan hazırlanmıştır.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyulduğu ve yararlanılan tüm çalışmaların kaynakçada belirtildiği beyan olunur.

The Relationship Between Income Distribution Inequality and Secondary Income Distribution in Türkiye: Evidence From The Hatemi-J Asymmetric Causality Test for The Period 2006-2024

Abstract

Income inequality is addressed through revisions to the weighting of taxes and transfer payments according to economic conditions. For this purpose, the study investigated the general trend of the relationship between income inequality and the components of taxes and transfer payments within the context of structural breaks in Türkiye. The relationship between income distribution and direct taxes, indirect taxes, wealth taxes, and transfer payments during the period 2006-2024 was analyzed using the Hatemi-J (2012) asymmetric causality test. According to the empirical findings, there is a unidirectional causal relationship between direct taxes and wealth taxes and income inequality; and a bidirectional symmetric and asymmetric causal relationship between indirect taxes and transfer payments and income inequality. This situation demonstrates that the welfare loss that high indirect taxes, applied indiscriminately between low and high-income earners, can cause, particularly among low-income earners, during the prolonged period of high inflation—from the inflation targeting regime officially launched in 2006 to combat imbalances in the relative price structure, through the 2008 global crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic—can be compensated for through transfer payments.

Keywords

• Income Distribution Inequality
• Secondary Income Distribution
• Hatemi-J Asymmetric Casuality Test
• Türkiye

Supporting Institution

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical Statement

It is declared that scientific and ethical principles have been followed while carrying out and writing this study and that all the sources used have been properly cited.

References

1. Ait Mansour, H. (2016). Accessibility of vulnerable groups to social protection programmes in the OIC member countries. Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.https://sbb.gov.tr/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/Accessibility_of_Vulnerable_Groups_to_Social_Protection_Programmes_in_the_OIC_Member_Countries.pdf
2. Akın, F. (2015). Gelir dağılımı ve gelir dağılımına müdahale gereği, İş ve Hayat Dergisi, 1(1), 9-24 Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (2025, June 25).Statistics. https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/en/tcmb+en
3. D'Agostino, G, Pieroni, L. & Scarlato, M. (2019). Further Evidence of the relationship between social transfers and income inequality in OECD countries. ECINEQ WP Series, 244, 2-30
4. Dianov, S., Koroleva, L., Pokrovskaia, N., Victorova, N. & Zaytsev, A. (2022). The influence of taxation on income inequality: analysis of the practice in the EU countries. Sustainability, 14(15), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159066
5. Drossidis, T. (2024). The time-varying effect of monetary policy on income inequality in the US. Brunel Economics and Finance Working Paper, 26, 1-27. https://www.brunel.ac.uk/economics
6. Eker, A., Altay, A. & Sakal, M. (1994). Maliye politikası, teori-ilkeler ve yöntemler. Anadolu Matbaası.
7. Ekici O. (2022). The nexus between income inequality and tax composition: a cross-country perspective. Ege Academic Review, 22(4), 224-239. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1063549
8. Erdoğdu, M. & Yenigün, E. (2008). Türkiye'de sosyal bütçe: Nasıl yapılıyor? Nasıl izlenir?. TESEV. https://www.tesev.org.tr/wp content/uploads/rapor_Turkiyede_Sosyal_Butce.pdf. 12.08.2025

9. Eser, Y.L. & Genç, M.C. (2020). Gelir ve servet üzerinden alınan vergilerin gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkisi: OECD ülkeleri örneği. Maliye Dergisi, 178, 224-239. https://ms.hmb.gov.tr
10. Granger, C.W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
11. Granger, C.W.J. & Yoon, G. (2002) Hidden cointegration. Department of Economics Discussion Paper, 2002-02,2-49. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.313831
12. Hacker, R.S. & Hatemi-J, A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: theory and application. Applied Economics, 38(13), 1489-1500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500405763
13. Hatemi-J, A. (2012). Asymmetric causality tests with an application. Empirical Economics, 43(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00181-011-0484-x
14. Holmes, R. & Ntale, C.L. (2012). Social protection in Africa: a review of social protection issues in research. Partnership for African Social and Governance Research, 2012, 1-64.
15. Luebker, M. (2011). The impact of taxes and transfers on inequality. International Labour Office Travail Policy Brief, 4, 211-241.
16. Malla, M.H. & Pathranarakul, P. (2022). Fiscal policy and income inequality: the critical role of institutional capacity. Economies, 10(5), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10050115
17. Murphy, R. H. (2015). The impact of economic inequality on economic freedom, Cato Journal, 35(1), 117-131.
18. Musibau, H.O., Zakari, A. & Hesary, F.T. (2024). Exploring the fiscal policy—income inequality relationship with Bayesian model averaging analysis. Economic Change and Restructuring, 57(21), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-024-09577-1
19. Ngo, N.A & Lee, H. (2025). Income inequality, poverty, and trade liberalization: evidence from the Vietnam–Us Bilateral Trade Agreement. Research in Economics, 79(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rie.2025.101054
20. Nguyen, V.B. (2025). The relationship between public debt and income inequality in advanced and developing economies: empirical evidence on the difference. Panoeconomicus, 7(1), 71-90. https://doi.org/10.2298/PAN211221001N
21. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). Economic Policy Reforms 2012 Going for Growth. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2012/02/economic-policy-reforms-2012_g1g1a4ff/growth-2012-en.pdf
22. Pehlivan, M. S. (2009). Gelir dağılımı eşitsizliğine devletin müdahale araçları. T. C. Başbakanlık Sosyal Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışma Genel Müdürlüğü. https://www.aile.gov.tr/uploads/sygm/uploads/pages/uzmanlik-tezleri/5-gelir dagilimi-esitsizligine-devletin-mudahale-araclari-sosyal-yardimlasma-ve-dayanismayi-tesvik fonu-ornegi-m-seyid-pehlivan.pdf
23. Perron, P. (1997). Further evidence on breaking trend functions in macroeconomic variables. Journal of Econometrics, 80, 355-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(97)00049-3
24. Perron, P. (2006). Dealing with structural breaks (K. Patterson & T. C. Mills, Eds.). Palgrave.
25. Polat, M.A. (2021). Vergilendirme politikalarının gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkileri: AB ülkeleri ve Türkiye için yeni nesil bir panel veri analizi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 12(29), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.725562
26. Pose, A. R. & Tselios, V. (2010). Inequalities in income and education and regional economic growth in western europe. The Annals of Regional Science, 44(2), 349-375.
27. Ranis, G., Stewart, F. & Ramirez, A. (2000). Economic growth and human development. World Development. 28(2), 197-219.
28. Recepoğlu, M. (2022). Public expenditures, economic growth and income inequality: empirical evidence from the Commonwealth of Independent States. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 9(2), 293-314. https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1103290
29. Selim, R. & Küçükçifçi, S. (2025). The effect of social transfers on income inequality and poverty in Türkiye. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16, 8198-8220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02196-1
30. Sinram, S. (2019). Opening the black-box of cabinet-level politics: Explaining disaggregated. Lit Verlag.
31. Stefanova, K. (2024). Public sector impact on income inequality in CEE countries. Economic Studies Journal, 33(3), 78-97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384287357
32. Sundrum, R. M. (1992). Income distribution in less developed countries. Routledge.
33. Toda, H.Y. & Yamamoto, T. (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66, 225-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8
34. Turkish Statistical Institute (2025, June 25). Statistics. https://www.tuik.gov.tr