TÜRKİYE'DE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME VE KAMU HARCAMALARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN AMPİRİK ANALİZİ: 1950 - 2009

Abstract

İlk kez 1883 yılında Wagner tarafından ifade edilen kamu harcamaları ve ulusal gelir ilişkisi, literatürde uzun süredir hem teorik hem de ampirik alanda tartışma konusu olmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı Wagner kanununun Türkiye için geçerliliğini 1950-2009 dönemine ait veriler kullanarak test etmektir. Kanun, uzun dönemde, kamu harcamalarındaki artışın görece ulusal gelirdeki artışa göre daha hızlı olacağını ifade eder. Kanunun geçerli olduğu durumda, nedensellik ilişkisinin ulusal gelirden kamu harcamalarına doğru olması gerekmektedir. Eşbütünleşme ve vektör hata düzeltme yöntemleri kullanarak yaptığımız ampirik sınamada elde ettiğimiz sonuçlar, kanunun ele alınan beş versiyonunda hipotezin geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Wagner Kanunu, Büyüme, Kamu Harcamaları, Nedensellik, Eşbütünleşme

References

1. Abdullah, H. ve S. Maamor (2010): “Relationship between National Product and Malaysian Government Development Expenditure: Wagner’s Law Validity Application”, International Journal of Business Management, 5 (1). 88-97.
2. Afzal, M. ve Q. Abbas (2010): “Wagner’s Law in Pakistan: Another Look”, Journal of Economics and International Finance, 2 (1), 12-19.
3. Ahsan, S.M., A.C.C. Kwan ve B.S.Sahni (1996): “Cointegration and Wagner's Hypothesis: Time Series Evidence for Canada”, Applied Economics, 28, 1055-58.
4. Al-Faris, A.F. (2002): “Public Expenditure and Economic Growth in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries”, Applied Economics, V. 34, 1187-93.
5. Akitoby, B, B. Clements, S. Gupta, ve G. Inchauste (2006): "Public Spending, Voracity, and Wagner's Law in Developing Countries," European Journal of Political Economy, 22 (4), 908–924.
6. Ansari, M.I., D.V. Gordon ve C. Akuamoah (1997): “Keynes versus Wagner: Public Expenditure and National Income for three African Countries”, Applied Economics, V. 29, 543-550.
7. Arısoy, İ. (2005): “Wagner ve Keynes Hipotezleri Çerçevesinde Türkiye’de Kamu Harcamaları ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi”, Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14 (2), 63-80.
8. Babatunde, M. A. (2007): “A Bound Testing Analysis of Wagner’s Law in Nigeria: 1970-2006”, Proceedings of Africa Metrics Conference, http://www.africametrics.org/documents/ conference08/ day1/session2/babatunde.pdf

9. Bağdigen, M. ve H. Çetintaş (2004): “Causality Between Public Expenditure and Economic Growth: The Turkish Case”, Journal of Economics and Social Research, 6(1), 53-72.
10. Bağdigen, M. ve B. Beşer (2009): “Ekonomik Büyüme ile Kamu Harcamaları Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisinin Wagner Tezi Kapsamında Bir Analizi: Türkiye Örneği”, ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5 (9), 1-17.
11. Başar, S., H. Aksu, S. Temurlenk ve Ö. Polat (2009): “Türkiye’de Kamu Harcamaları ve Büyüme İlişkisi: Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı”, Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13 (1), 301-314.
12. Bird, R.M. (1971): “Wagner’s Law of Expanding State Activity”, Public Finance, 26 (1), 1-26.
13. Biswal, B., U. Dhawan ve H.Y. Lee (1999): “Testing Wagner versus Keynes Using Disaggregated Public Expenditure Data for Canada”, Applied Economics, V. 31, 1283-91.
14. Burney, N.A. (2002): “Wagner's Hypothesis: Evidence from Kuwait Using Cointegration Tests”, Applied Economics, V. 34, 49-57.
15. Carr, J. L. (1989): “Government Size and Economic Growth: A New Framework and some Evidence from Cross Section and Time Series Data: Comment”, The American Economic Review, 79 (1): 267-271
16. Courakis, A.S., F. Moura-Roque ve G.Tridimas, 1993, “Public Expenditure Growth in Greece and Portugal: Wagner's Law and Beyond”, Applied Economics, V. 25, 125-34.
17. Çavuşoğlu, A.T. (2005): “Testing the Validity of Wagner’s Law in Turkey: The Bounds Testing Approach”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 60 (1), 73-87.
18. Demirbaş, S. (1999): “Co-integration Analysis-causality Testing and Wagner’s Law: The Case of Turkey, 1950-1990”, University of Leicester Discussion Papers, 99/2, available at: www.le.ac.uk/economics/research/RePEc/lec/leecon/econ99-3.pdf.
19. Doğan, E., T.C. Tang (2006): “Government Expenditure and National Income: Causality Tests For Five South East Asian Countries”, International Business and Economics Research Journal, 5 (10), 49-58.
20. Enders, W. (2004), Applied Econometric Time Series, Canada: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
21. Engle, R. F. ve Granger C. W. (1987), “Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing”, Econometrica, 55 (2), 251-276.
22. Florio, M. ve S. Colautti (2005): “A Logistic Growth Theory of Public Expenditures: A Study of Five Countries over 100 Years”, Public Choice, V. 122, 355-93.
23. Ganti, S., B.R. Kolluri (1979): “Wagner’s Law of Public Expenditures: some efficient results for the US”, Public Finance, 34 (2), 225-233
24. Ghali, H. K. (1998): “Government Size and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Multivariate Cointegration Analysis”, Applied Economics, V. 31, 975-987
25. Ghorbani, M. ve A.F. Zarea (2009): “Wagner’s Law in Iran’s Economy”, Journal of Economics and International Finance, 1(5), 115-121.
26. Günaydın, İ. (2000): “Türkiye İçin Wagner ve Keynes Hipotezlerinin Testi”, İktisat, İşletme ve Finans Dergisi, No. 175, 70-86.
27. Halıcıoğlu, F. (2003): “Testing Wagner’s Law for Turkey, 1960-2000”, Review of Middle East Economics and Finance, 1 (2), 129-140.
28. Henning, J. A., A.D. Tussing (1974): “Income Elasticity of the Demand For Public Expenditures in the US”, Public Finance, 29 (3-4): 325-341
29. Henrekson, M. (1993): “Wagner’s Law- A Spurious Relationship?”, Public Finance, 48 (2), 406- 415.
30. Hondroyiannis, G. ve E. Papapetrou (1995): “An examination of Wagner’s law for Greece: a cointegration analysis”, Public Finance, 50 (1), 67–79.
31. Huang, C. J. (2006): “Government Expenditures In China and Taiwan: Do They Follow Wagner’s Law?”, Journal of Economic Development, 31 (2). 139-147.
32. Islam, A.M. (2001): “Wagner's Law Revisited: Cointegration and Exogeneity Tests for the USA”, Applied Economics Letters, V. 8, 509-15.
33. Işık, N. ve M. Alagöz (2005): “Kamu Harcamaları ve Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki, Erciyes Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, S. 24, 63-75.
34. Iyare, S. O. ve T. Lorde (2004): "Co-integration, Causality and Wagner's Law: Tests for Selected Caribbean Countries", Applied Economics Letters, V. 11, 815-25.
35. Johansen, S. (1988), “Statistical and hypothesis testing of co-integration vectors”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, 231–254.
36. Johansen, S. ve K. Juselius (1990), “Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with applications to the demand for Money”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics, V. 52, 169-210.
37. Kolluri, B.R., M.J.Panik ve M.S.Wahab (2000): “Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: Evidence from G7 Countries”, Applied-Economics, V. 32, 1059-68.
38. Krzyzaniak, M. (1974): “The Case of Turkey: Government Expenditures, The Revenue Constraint and Wagner’s Law”, Growth and Change, 5 (2), 13-19.
39. Kumar, S., D.J. Webber ve S. Fargher (2009): “Wagner’s Law Revisited: Cointegration and Causality Tests for New Zeland”, University of the West of England Discussion Papers, No: 917.
40. Landau, D.(1983) “Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: A Cross Country Study” Southern Economic Journal, 49 (3), 783-792.
41. Loizides, J. ve G. Vamvoukas (2005): “Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: evidence from trivariate causality testing”, Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. VIII., s. 125-152.
42. Lowery, D., W.D. Berry (1983): “The Growth of Government in the United States: An Empirical Assesment of Competing Explanations”, American Journal of Political Science, V. 27, 665-694.
43. Mann, A.J. (1980): “Wagner’s law: an econometric test for Mexico: 1925–1976”. National Tax Journal, 33 (2), 189–201.
44. Mohammadi, H., M. Cak ve D. Cak (2008): “Wagner’s Hypothesis: New Evidence From Turkey Using the Bounds Testing Approach”, Journal of Economics Studies, 35 (1), 94-106.
45. Murthy, N.R.V. (1993): “Further Evidence of Wagner's Law for Mexico: An Application of Cointegration Analysis”, Public Finance, V. 48, 92-96.
46. Narayan, P. K., I. Nielsen ve R. Smyth (2008): “Panel Data, Cointegration, Causality and Wagner’s Law: Empirical Evidence From Chinese Provinces, China Economic Review, 19 (2), 297-307.
47. Oktayer, N. ve N. Susam (2008): “Kamu Harcamaları-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: 1970-2005 Yılları Türkiye Örneği”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 22 (1), 145-164.
48. Oxley, L. (1994): “Co-integration, Causality and Wagner's Law: A Test for Britain 1870-1913”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, V. 41, 286-98. Ram, R. (1986): “Causality between income and government expenditure: a broad international perspective”, Public Finance, 31 (3), 393–413.
49. Ram, R. (1987): “Wagner’s Hypothesis in Time-series and Cross-section Perspectives: evidence from real data from 115 countries”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 69 (2), 194-204.
50. Rehman, H.ve I. M. Sarwar (2007): “Testing Wagner’s Law for Pakistan: 1972-2004”, Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 45 (2), 155-166.
51. Samudram, M., M. Nair, ve S. Vaithilingam (2009): “Keynes and Wagner on government expenditures and economic development: The case of a developing economy”, Empirical Economics, 36 (3), 697-712.
52. Sarı, R. (2003): “Kamu Harcamalarının Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Gelişimi ve Türkiye’de Ulusal Gelir ile İlişkisi”, İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, 18 (209), 25-38.
53. Sideris, D. (2007): “Wagner’s Law in 19th Century Greece: A Cointegration and Causality Analysis”, Bank of Greece Working Papers, No: 64.
54. Singh, B. ve B. S. Sahni (1984): “Causality Between Public Expenditure and National Income”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, V. 66, 630-644.
55. Sinha, D. (2007): “Does the Wagner’s Law Hold for Thailand? A Time Series Study”, MPRA Paper, No:2560, University Library of Munich, Germany.
56. Terzi, H. (1998): “Kamu Harcamaları ile Ekonomik Kalkınma İlişkisi Üzerine Ekonometrik Bir İnceleme”, İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, 13 (142), 67-78.
57. Thornton, J. (1999): “Co-integration, Causality and Wagner's Law in 19th Century Europe”, Applied Economics Letters, V. 6, 413-16.
58. Verma, S. ve R. Arora (2010): “Does the Indian Economy Support Wagner Law? An Econometric Analysis, Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 3 (5), 77-91.
59. Wahab, M. (2004): "Economic Growth and Government Expenditure: Evidence from a New Test Specification", Applied-Economics, V. 36, 2125-35.
60. Yamak, N. ve Y. Küçükkale (1997): “Türkiye’de Kamu Harcamaları-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi”, İktisat, İşletme ve Finans Dergisi, No. 131, 5-14.
61. Yay, T. ve H. Taştan (2009): “Growth of Public Expenditures in Turkey During the 1950-2004 Period: An Econometric Analysis”, Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, V. 4, 101-118.
62. Ziramba, E. (2008): “Wagner’s Law: An Econometric Test for South Africa: 1960-2006”, South African Journal of Economics, 76 (4), 596-606.
63. Zivot, E. ve D. W. K. Andrews (1992), “Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis”, Journal of Business Economic Statistics, V. 10, 251-270.