The Relationship Between Constitutional Economics Theory and Fiscal Rules: An Empirical Analysis of the Different Effects of the Same Type of Rule on Various Variables (2000-2020)

Abstract

Constitutional Economics Theory emerged from the need to strengthen the relationship between economic and political spheres, gaining particular importance in the late 20th century with the increasing emphasis on economic freedom. The limitations of the Keynesian economic approach have brought constitutional economics discussions to the forefront from a public choice perspective. Within this framework, the implementation of rule-based fiscal policies is recognized as a critical tool for ensuring economic stability. In European Union countries, rule-based approaches in fiscal policy gained prominence after the 1980s, and regulatory frameworks such as the Maastricht Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact strengthened the fiscal policy infrastructure. In Turkey, however, rule-based arrangements have been limited, and economic vulnerability has not been fully prevented. This study examines the theoretical foundations of rule-based fiscal policies and empirically analyzes OECD member countries to assess the impact of various independent macroeconomic variables—such as budget balance, public expenditures, and debt stock—on economic growth and unemployment. The findings indicate that rule-based fiscal policies contribute to enhancing economic stability. Based on these results, it is recommended that policymakers strengthen fiscal rule implementation and adopt disciplined yet flexible policies to withstand economic shocks.

Keywords

• constitutional economics
• fiscal rules
• OECD
• budget deficit

Anayasal İktisat Teorisi – Mali Kural İlişkisi: Aynı Kural Türünde Görülen Farklı Değişken Etkisinin Ampirik Analizi (2000-2020)

Abstract

Anayasal İktisat Teorisi, ekonomik ve siyasi alanlar arasındaki ilişkinin güçlendirilmesi ihtiyacından doğmuş ve özellikle 20. yüzyılın sonlarında ekonomik özgürlüğün önem kazanmasıyla ön plana çıkmıştır. Keynesyen iktisat yaklaşımının sınırlılıkları, kamu tercihi perspektifinden anayasal iktisat tartışmalarını gündeme taşımıştır. Bu bağlamda, kurallı maliye politikalarının uygulanması ekonomik istikrarın sağlanmasında kritik bir araç olarak görülmektedir. Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde 1980 sonrası dönemde mali politikalarda kurallılık ön plana çıkmış, Maastricht Antlaşması ve İstikrar ve Büyüme Paktı ile mali politika altyapısı güçlendirilmiştir. Türkiye’de ise kurala dayalı düzenlemeler sınırlı kalmış ve ekonomik kırılganlık tam olarak önlenememiştir. Çalışmada, kurallı maliye politikalarının teorik temelleri ele alınmış ve OECD üye ülkelerinde ampirik uygulama ile farklı bağımsız makroekonomik değişkenlerin (bütçe dengesi, kamu harcamaları, borç stoku gibi) ekonomik büyüme ve işsizlik üzerindeki etkileri analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, kurallı maliye politikalarının ekonomik istikrarı artırdığını göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlara dayanarak, politika yapıcıların mali kural uygulamalarını güçlendirmesi ve şoklara karşı esnek, ancak disiplinli mali politikalar yürütmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• anayasal iktisat
• mali kurallar
• OECD
• bütçe açığı

References

1. Afonso, A., & Hauptmeier, S. (2009). Fiscal behaviour in the European Union: Rules, fiscal decentralization and government indebtedness (ECB Working Paper No. 1054). European Central Bank.
2. Aizenman, J., & Jinjarak, Y. (2010). De facto fiscal space and fiscal stimulus: Definition and assessment (NBER Working Paper No. 16539). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w16539
3. Aktan, C. C. (2011, Ocak). Anayasal iktisat felsefesi, ekonomi politikasının anayasası ve mali kurallar. Çimento İşveren Dergisi, 1-8.
4. Alpar, R. (2020). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler. Detay Yayıncılık.
5. Altun, T. (2019). Mali kurumlar: Mali disiplin ve bütçe hakkı ile ilişkisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 33(4), 1045-1063.
6. Andrián, L., Hirs‑Garzón, J., Urrea, I., & Valencia, O. (2023). Fiscal rules and economic cycles: Quality (always) matters (IDB Working Paper Series No. IDB‑WP‑01374). Inter‑American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0004570
7. Arcand, J. L., Berkes, E., & Panizza, U. (2015). Too much finance?. Journal of Economic Growth, 20(2), 105-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-015-9115-2
8. Ayuso-i-Casals, J. (2012). National expenditure rules – Why, how and when (European Economy Economic Papers No. 473). European Commission.

9. Baltagi, B. H. (2009). Econometric analysis of panel data (Fourth edition). John Wiley & Sons.
10. Baltagi, B. H., & Li, Q. (1995). Testing AR(1) against MA(1) disturbances in an error component model. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 133-151 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01646-H
11. Balvir, D. (2023). Fiscal rules: The imitation game. Applied Economics, 56(6), 708-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2023.2170969
12. Barro, R. J. (1986). Reputation in a model of monetary policy with incomplete information. Journal of Monetary Economics, 17(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(86)90003-6
13. Bergman, U. M., Hutchison, M. M., & Jensen, S. E. H. (2016). Promoting sustainable public finances in the European Union: The role of fiscal rules and government efficiency. European Journal of Political Economy, 45, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.04.005
14. Besley, T., & Persson, T. (2014). The causes and consequences of development clusters: State capacity, peace, and income. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 927-949. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041128
15. Blanchard, O. J. (1990). Suggestions for a new set of fiscal indicators (OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 79). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/435618162862
16. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287-1294. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963
17. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
18. Buchanan, J. M., & Wagner, R. E. (1977). Democracy in deficit: The political legacy of Lord Keynes. Academic Press.
19. Davoodi, H. R., Elger, P., Fotiou, A., Garcia-Macia, D., Han, X., Lagerborg, A., Lam, W. R., & Medas, P. (2022). Fiscal rules and fiscal councils: Recent trends and performance during the COVID-19 pandemic (IMF Working Paper No. 22/11). International Monetary Fund.
20. De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600403
21. Debrun, X., & Jonung, L. (2019). Under threat: Rules-based fiscal policy and how to preserve it. European Journal of Political Economy, 57, 142-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.09.001
22. Demir, M., & İnan, M. (2011). Türkiye’de mali kural. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 25-66.
23. Dineri, E. (2021). Mali disiplinin sağlanması ve ekonomik istikrar: Türkiye örneği. Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 38-48.
24. Dotsey, M. (2008). Commitment versus discretion in monetary policy. Business Review, Q4, 1-8.
25. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549-560. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557825
26. Dündar, O. (2017). Bir anayasal iktisat örneği olarak Glass-Steagal Yasası. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(17), 605-615. http://dx.doi.org/10.16990/SOBIDER.3899
27. Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1971). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression.III. Biometrika, 58(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/58.1.1
28. Eğilmez, M. (2015). Makroekonomi. Remzi Kitabevi.
29. European Central Bank. (2023). Economic Bulletin: Issue 4/2023. European Central Bank.
30. Frees, E. W. (1995). Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 69(2), 393-414. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01658-M
31. Freund, C., & Weinhold, D. (2004). The effect of the Internet on international trade. Journal of International Economics, 62(1), 171-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(03)00059-X
32. Golinelli, R., & Momigliano, S. (2009). The cyclical reaction of fiscal policies in the Euro area: The role of modelling choices and data sources. Fiscal Studies, 26(4), 501-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2009.00089.x
33. Gonçalves, S., Perron, B., & Djogbenou, A. (2017). Bootstrap prediction intervals for factor models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 35(1), 53-69 https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2015.1054492
34. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (Seventh edition). Pearson Education.
35. Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic econometrics (Fourth edition). McGraw-Hill.
36. Günaydın, İ., & Eser, L. Y. (2009). Maliye politikasındaki yeni trend: mali kurallar. Maliye Dergisi, 156, 51-65.
37. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
38. Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. (1987). A test for normality of observations and regression residuals. International Statistical Review, 55(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403192
39. King, R. G., & Levine, R. (1993). Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 717-737. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118406
40. Kopits, G., & Symansky, S. (1998). Fiscal policy rules (IMF Occasional Paper No. 162). International Monetary Fund.
41. Kydland, F. E., & Prescott, E. C. (1977). Rules rather than discretion: The inconsistency of optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy, 85(3), 473-491. https://doi.org/10.1086/260580
42. Nerlich, C., & Reuter, W. H. (2015). Fiscal rules, fiscal space and procyclical fiscal policy (ECB Working Paper No. 1872). European Central Bank. https://doi.org/10.2866/521587
43. OECD. (2015). The state of public finances 2015: Strategies for budgetary consolidation and reform in OECD countries. OECD Publishing.
44. OECD. (2023). 2023 OECD Senior Budget Officials Survey on Budget Frameworks [Data set]. OECD Public Finance and Budgeting Database.
45. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0435). University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
46. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
47. Petersen, L., & Rholes, R. (2022). Escaping secular stagnation with unconventional monetary policy (NBER Working Paper No. 30117). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30117
48. Swamy, P. A. V. B., & Arora, S. S. (1972). The exact finite sample properties of the estimators of coefficients in the error components regression models. Econometrica, 40(2), 261-275. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909405
49. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2012). Panel veri analizi: Stata uygulamalı (İkinci baskı). Beta Yayıncılık.
50. Taylor, J. B. (1993). Discretion versus policy rules in practice. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 39, 195-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2231(93)90009-L
51. Uzun, T. (2009). Kamu tercihi ve anayasal iktisat kuramı üzerine bir değerlendirme. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (23), 223-246.
52. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817-838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
53. Woodford, M. (2001). Fiscal requirements for price stability. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 33(3), 669-728. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673890
54. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (Second edition). MIT Press.
55. Wyplosz, C. (2012). Fiscal rules: Theoretical issues and historical experiences (NBER Working Paper No. 17884). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17884
56. Yolal, M. (2018). Nobel ödülü sahibi James M. Buchanan’ın konseptinden kurallar. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(65), 160-179. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.312170