SOSYAL HARCAMALAR İLE GELİR DAĞILIMI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN İNCELENMESİ: OECD ÜZERİNE BİR UYGULAMA

Year 2020, Issue: 17, 265 - 282, 30.11.2020

Hakan Kalkavan , İrfan Ersin

https://doi.org/10.21441/sosyalguvence.823668

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Sosyal harcamalar, bir toplumda düşük gelir guruplarının belli refah seviyesine erişebilmeleri için yapılan destekleri kapsayan bir ekonomi politikasıdır. Bir ülkenin ekonomik büyüme performansında başarı sağlaması, kalkınması için yeterli bir gösterge değildir. Büyümenin yanında, milli gelirin hanehalkı arasında adil paylaşımı da önemli bir makroekonomik meseledir. Bu sorunun giderilmesinde sosyal harcamalar bir çözüm yolu olarak ortaya konmaktadır. Çalışmamız bu çözüm yolunun işlerliğini test etmek adına sosyal harcamalar ile gelir dağılımı arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. OECD ülkelerinin kapsam olarak alındığı çalışmamızda 1980-2015 dönemi, Pedroni ve Kao Panel Eşbütünleşme ve Dumitrescu-Hurlin Panel nedensellik yöntemleri ile dikkate alınmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, OECD ülkelerinde sosyal harcamalar ve gelir dağılımı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Dahası sosyal harcamalardan gelir dağılımına nedensellik ilişkisi bulunmuştur. Politik öneri olarak OECD bünyesinde sosyal harcamalar için ortak bir fon oluşturulması ve bu fonun yoksul gruplara ulaştırılması sunulmuştur.

Keywords

Sosyal Harcamalar, Gelir Dağılımı, Gini Katsayısı, Pedroni Eşbütünleşme, Dumitrescu-Hurlin Nedensellik, OECD

References

• Adema, W. (2001). Net social expenditure. Oecd Socıal, Employment And Mıgratıon Workıng Papers No. 29.
• Adema, W., & Ladaique, M. (2005). Net social expenditure, 2005 edition: More comprehensive measures of social support (No. 29). OECD Publishing.
• Adema, W., Fron, P, Ladaique, M (2011) Is the European Welfare State Really More Expensive? Indicators on Social Spending, 1980–2012; and a Manual to the OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX). OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper 124. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
• Álvarez-García, S., Saez, M. P., & Castaneda, D. (2015). Is social protection expenditure or an investment? A cross-country comparison in the European Union. Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, 5(6), 1-11.
• Araújo, I., & Simões, M. (2018). Globalisation and the Composition of the Welfare State: Evidence From OECD Countries. In B. Sergi, F. Fidanoski, M. Ziolo, & V. Naumovski (Eds.), Regaining Global Stability After the Financial Crisis (pp. 257-285). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-4026-7.ch013
• Ayvaz, Ö. (2006). Mevsimsel birim kök testi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(1), 71-87.
• Bayar, Y., & Sasmaz, M. U. (2018). Social Expenditures and Poverty in Central and Eastern European Union Countries: A Causality Analysis BT - The Impact of Globalization on International Finance and Accounting (D. Procházka, ed.). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Beck, W., Van Der Maesen, L., Thomese, F., Walker, A., eds (2001). Social Quality: A Vision for Europe. London: Kluwer Law International.
• Bergh, A., Dackehag, M., & Rode, M. (2017a). Are OECD policy recommendations for public sector reform biased against welfare states? Evidence from a new database. European Journal of Political Economy, 48, 3–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.09.001
• Bergh, A., Mirkina, I., & Nilsson, T. (2019). Can social spending cushion the inequality effect of globalization? Economics & Politics. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12143
• Bergh, A., A. Kolev and C. Tassot (2017b). Economic globalisation, inequality and the role of social protection. OECD Development Centre Working Papers, No. 341, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/c3255d32-en
• Caminada, K., & Goudswaard, K. (2005). Are Public and Private Social Expenditures Complementary? International Advances in Economic Research, 11(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-005-3014-9
• Causa, O., & Hermansen, M. N. (2018). Income redistribution through taxes and transfers across OECD countries. Retrieved from Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) website: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/203015
• Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 249-272, April.
• d'Agostino, G., Pieroni, L., & Procidano, I. (2016). Revisiting the relationship between welfare spending and income inequality in OECD countries. Tech. Rep. 72020. University Library of Munich, Germany.
• Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American statistical association, 74(366a), 427-431. Dumitrescu, E. I. &Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 294, 1450-1460.
• Engle, R. F. & Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 251-276.
• Ersin, İ., & Baş, H. (2019). Güney Avrupa Refah Ülkelerinde Sosyal Harcamalar Ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. SGD-Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 9(1), 193-213.
• Goudswaard, K. & Caminada, K. (2014). Private social expenditure and the redistributive impact of the welfare state. In Monica Budowski und Michael Nollert (eds.) Private Macht im Wohlfahrtsstaat: Akteure und Institutionen. Seismo Verlag, Zürich, pp. 188-204.
• Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, Elsevier, 115(1), 53-74.
• Kadomtseva, S., & Palochkina, V. (2015). The Federal Budget Appropriations Impact on Social Policy Effectiveness in the Russian Federation. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(5), 480-487.
• Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of econometrics, 90(1), 1-44.
• Kauder, B., & Potrafke, N. (2015). Globalization and social justice in OECD countries. Review of World Economics, 151(2), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-015-0213-1
• Kim, K. (2019). Which Income Inequality Influences Which Health Indicators? Analysis of the Income Inequality Hypothesis with Market and Disposable Gini Indicators. Social Indicators Research, 146(3), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02129-5
• Kim, T., & Kim, H. (2017). Which country uses public social expenditure efficiently among OECD countries? Applied Economics Letters, 24(10), 677–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2016.1221031
• Konishi, H., & Miyazato, N. (2018). Distributive Impacts of Social Protection Systems in OECD Countries: Public-Private Mix and Hidden Welfare States (No. 1804).
• Kozuharov, S., & Petkovski, 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. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/195324
• Kranzinger, S. (2019). The decomposition of income inequality in the EU-28. Empirica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-019-09450-9
• Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
• Lin, E. S., Ali, H. E., & Lu, Y.-L. (2015). Does Military Spending Crowd Out Social Welfare Expenditures? Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries. Defence and Peace Economics, 26(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2013.848576
• Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1), 631-652.
• Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1), 653-670.
• Pedroni, P. Fully (2001) Modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. In Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels pp. 93-130. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Sánchez, Á., & Pérez-Corral, A. L. (2018). Government Social Expenditure and Income Inequalities in the European Union. Hacienda Pública Española, 227(4), 133-156.
• Seelkopf, L., & Lierse, H. (2016). Taxation and Inequality: How Tax Competition Has Changed the Redistributive Capacity of Nation-States in the OECD BT - Welfare State Transformations and Inequality in OECD Countries (M. Wulfgramm, T. Bieber, & S. Leibfried, Eds.). https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51184-3_5
• Tari, R. (2010). Ekonometri. Umuttepe Yayınları, Kocaeli.
• Tridico, P. (2017). The determinants of income inequality in OECD countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 42(4), 1009–1042. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex069
• Ulu, M. İ. (2018). The Effect of Government Social Spending on Income Inequality in OECD: A Panel Data Analysis. Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(3), 184-202. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijephss/issue/39673/462330
• Van Vliet, O., & Wang, C. (2015). Social Investment and Poverty Reduction: A Comparative Analysis across Fifteen European Countries. Journal of Social Policy, 44(3), 611–638. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279415000070
• Yilmiz, M. H., Ali, F., Mubin, M., & Waqas, M. (2016). Income Inequality and Its Measures: Evidence from OECD and European Countries. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development, 20(1), 9-25. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2910695