KAMU HARCAMALARI VE KAMU GELİRLERİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: PANEL NEDENSELLİK ANALİZİ

Öz

Günümüzde OECD üyesi ülkelerin birçoğu yüksek bütçe açıkları ile karşı karşıyadır. Bu durum, bütçe açıklarını azaltmada vergilere mi yoksa kamu harcamalarına mı öncelik verileceğine yönelik tartışmaları gündeme getirmiştir. Bu nedenle kamu harcamaları ve kamu gelirleri arasındaki ilişki politika belirleyicileri açısından büyük önem ihtiva etmektedir. Bu çalışmada 34 OECD üyesi ülkenin 1994-2007 dönemi yıllık verilerine dayanılarak kamu harcamaları ile kamu gelirleri arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi ele alınmıştır. Bu çalışmanın ampirik sonuçları, kamu harcamaları ile vergi gelirleri arasında pozitif bir ilişkiyi desteklemektedir. Bununla birlikte Holtz-Eakin nedensellik test sonuçları, vergilerden kamu harcamalarına yönelik tek taraflı bir nedensellik ilişkisine ve OECD ülkeleri için vergi-harcama hipotezinin geçerliliğine işaret etmektedir. Bu bulgu, vergi gelirlerinin arttırılması sonucu bütçe açıklarının azaltılabileceği yönündeki geleneksel görüşe uygun düşmemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Vergi-harcama hipotezi, harcama-vergi hipotezi, bütçe açıkları, kamu harcamaları, vergiler

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND PUBLIC REVENUE: PANEL CAUSALITY ANALYSIS

Öz

Today, most of the OECD member countries faced with high budget deficits. This case brings up the discussions on priority of reducing the budget deficits using expenditure or taxes to the agenda. For this reason, the relationship between public expenditure and public revenue has a great importance for policy makers. In this study the causality relationship between public expenditure and public revenue are investigated based on 34 OECD member countries annual data over 1994-2007 period. Empirical results of this study mainly support the positive relationship between public expenditures and tax revenues. Moreover, the results of Holtz-Eakin causality tests indicate the unidirectional causality running from tax revenues to public expenditures and the validity of tax-spend hypothesis for OECD member countries. Our findings are inconsistent with the traditional view that increasing tax revenues can be reduced budget deficits.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tax-spend hypothesis, spend-tax hypothesis, budget deficits, public expenditure, taxes

Kaynakça

1. Abual-Foul, B. ve H. Baghestani (2004), “The Causal Relation between Government Revenue and Spending: Evidence from Egypt and Jordan”, Journal of Economics and Finance, 28 (2), 260–269.
2. Ahiakpor, J. C. W. ve S. Amirkhalkhali (1989), “On the Difficulty of Eliminating Deficits with Higher Taxes: Some Canadian Evidence”, Southern Economic Journal 56, 24-31.
3. Akçağlayan, Anıl ve M. Kayıran (2010), “Türkiye`de Kamu Harcamaları ve Gelirleri: Nedensellik İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, Ekim 2010, 129-130.
4. Akçoraoglu, A. (1999), “Kamu Harcamaları, Kamu Gelirleri ve Keynesci Politikalar: Bir Nedensellik Analizi”, Gazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 2, 51-65.
5. Alfonso, A. ve C. Rault (2009), “Spend and Tax: A Panel Data Investigation for The EU”, Economics Bulletin, 29(4), 2542-2548.
6. Al-Qudair, K.H.A. (2005), “The Relationship Between Government Expenditure and Revenues in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Testing for Cointegration and Causality”, JKAU, 19(1), 31–43.
7. Anderson W., M.S. Wallace ve J.T. Warner (1986), “Government Spending and Taxation: What Causes What?”, Southern Economic Association, 52(3), 630-639.
8. Apergis, N., J. E. Payne ve J. W. Saunoris (2012),"Tax-spend Nexus in Greece: Are There Asymmetries?", Journal of Economic Studies, 39 (3), 327 – 336.

9. Arellano, M. ve S. Bond (1991), “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and An Application to Employment Equations”, Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277-297.
10. Aslan, M. ve M. Tasdemir (2009), “Is Fiscal Synchronization Hypothesis Relevant for Turkey? Evidence from Cointegration and Causality Tests with Endogenous Structural Breaks”, Journal of Money, Investment and Banking, 12, 14-25.
11. Baghestani, H., ve R. McNown (1994), “Do Revenues or Expenditures Respond to Budgetary Disequilibria?”, Southern Economic Journal, 60 (2), 311–322.
12. Barro, R. J. (1979), “On The Determination of The Public Debt”, Journal of Political Economy, 81, 940-971.
13. Bohn, H. (1991), “Budget Balance Through Revenue or Spending Adjustments?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 27, 333-359.
14. Buchanan, J. M. ve R. W. Wagner (1977), Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes, New York: Academic Press.
15. Chang T., W. R. Liu ve S. B. Caudill (2002), “Tax and Spend, Spend and Tax, or Fiscal Synchronization: New Evidence for Ten Countries”, Applied Economics, 34, 1553–1561.
16. Chang, T. ve G. Chiang (2009), “Revisiting the Government Revenue- Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from 15 OECD Countries Based On the Panel Data Approach”, Czech Journal of Economics and Finance, 59(2), 165-172.
17. Chang, T. ve Y.H. Ho (2002), “A Note on Testing Tax and Spend, Spend and Tax or Fiscal Synchronization: The Case of China”, Journal of Economic Development, 27(1), 151-160.
18. Chen, S. (2008), “Untangling The Web of Causalities Among Four Disaggregate Government Expenditures, Government Revenue and Output in Taiwan”, Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 6 (1), 99-107.
19. Cheng, B. S. (1999), “Causality Between Taxes and Expenditures: Evidence from Latin American Countries”, Journal of Economics and Finance 23 (2), 184-92.
20. Choi, I. (2001), “Unit Root Test for Panel Data”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272.
21. Çavuşoğlu, A.T. (2008), “Türkiye’de Kamu Gelirleri ile Kamu Harcamaları Arasındaki İlişki Üzerine Ekonometrik Bir Analiz”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 143-160.
22. Darrat, A.F. (1998), “Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax? An Inquiry into The Turkish Budgetary Process”, Southern Economic Journal, 64(4), 940-956.
23. Eita, J. H. ve D. Mbazima (2008), “The Causal Relationship Between Government Expenditure and Revenue in Namibia”, MPRA Paper No. 9154, University of Munich.
24. Fasano U. ve Q. Wang (2002), “Testing the Relationship Between Government Spending and Revenue: Evidence from GCC Countries”, IMF, Working Paper, No. 21.
25. Friedman, M. (1978), “The Limitations of Tax Limitation”, Policy Review, Summer, 7, 14.
26. Gounder, N. ve P. K. Narayan (2005), “An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Government Revenue and Expenditure: The Case of the Fiji Islands”, In submission at International Review of Applied Economics, 24.
27. Granger, C.W.J. (1980), “Testing for Causality: A Personal Viewpoint”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2, 329-352.
28. Günaydın, İ. (2004), “Vergi‐Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5(2), 163‐181.
29. Hasan, M. ve I. Lincoln (1997), “Tax Then Spend or Spend Then Tax? Experience in the UK 1961- 1993”, Applied Economics Letters, 4, 237-239. Hazine (2012), Kamu Finansmanı İstatistikleri, http://www.hazine.gov.tr/irj/portal/anonymous?NavigationTarget=navurl://ca8ab252efea63752bıcb4eıcc8ı997&InitialNodeFirstLevel=true, (14.10.2012).
30. Henrekson, M. (1993), “The Peacock-Wiseman Hypothesis”, The Growth of The Public Sector, Theories and International Evidence, Ed. In N. Gemmell, 53–71. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
31. Holtz-Eakın, D., W. Newey ve H.S. Rosen (1988), “Estimating Vector Autoregressions with Panel Data”, Econometrica, 56, 1371-1395.
32. Hondroyiannis, G., ve E. Papapetrou (1996), “An Examination of The Causal Relationship Between Government Spending and Revenue: Acointegration Analysis”, Public Choice, 89 (3-4), 363-374.
33. Hussain, M. H. (2004), “On the Causal Relationship Between Government Expenditure and Tax Revenue in Pakistan”, The Lahore Journal of Economics, 9(2), 105 118.
34. Im, K. S., M. H. Peseran ve Y. Shin (2003), “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53-63.
35. Katrakilidis, C. P. (1997), “Spending and Revenues in Greece: New Evidence from Error Correction Modelling”, Applied Economics Letters, 4 (6), 387-391.
36. Kirmanoğlu, H. (2009), Kamu Ekonomisi Analizi, 2. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
37. Koren, S. ve A. Stiassny (1998), “Tax and Spend, or Spend and Tax? An International Study”, Journal of Policy Modeling, 20, 163-191.
38. Kök, R. ve Ş. Nevzat (2006), “Endüstri-İçi Dış Ticaret, Patentler ve Uluslararası Teknolojik Yayılma”, Türkiye Ekonomi Kurumu Uluslararası Ekonomi Konferansı, 11-13 Eylül 2006, Ankara.
39. Li, X. (2001), “Government Revenue, Government Expenditure, and Temporal Causality: Evidence from China”, Applied Economics, 23, 485- 497.
40. Maddala, G.S. ve S. Wu (1999), “A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests With Panel Data and a New Simple Test”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Special Issue, 61, 631-652.
41. Manage, N. ve M. L. Marlow (1986), “The Causal Relation Between Federal Expenditures and Receipts”, Southern Economic Journal, 52, 617-29.
42. Meltzer, A. H. ve S. F. Richard (1981), “A Rational Theory of The Size of Government”, Journal of Political Economy, 89, 914-927.
43. Narayan, P. K. (2005), “The Government Revenue and Government Expenditure Nexus: Empirical Evidence from Nine Asian Countries”, Journal of Asian Economics, 15, 1203–1216.
44. Narayan, P. K. ve S. Narayan (2006), “Government Revenue and Government Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Developing Countries”, Applied Economics, 38, 285–291.
45. OECD (2011), OECD Factbook 2011-2012 Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2011-en, (15.12.2012).
46. Owoye, O. (1995), “The Causal Relationship Between Taxes and Expenditures in The G7 Countries: Cointegration and Error Correction Models”, Applied Economics Letters, 2, 19-22.
47. Park, W. K. (1998), “Granger Causality Between Government Revenues and Expenditures in Korea”, Journal of Economic Development, 23 (1), 145-55.
48. Payne, J. (1998), “The Tax-Spend Debate: Time Series Evidence from State Budgets”, Public Choice, 95, 307-320.
49. Payne, J. E. (1998), “The Tax-spend Debate: Time Series Evidence from State Budgets”, Public Choice, 95 (3-4), 307-320.
50. Pedroni, P. (1999), “Critical Values for Cointegration Test in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Special Issue, 653- 670.
51. Ram, R (1988), “Additional Evidence on Causality Between Government Revenues and Government Expenditure”, Southern Economic Journal, 617– 628.
52. Saunoris J. W. ve J. E. Payne (2010), “Tax More or Spend Less? Asymmetries in the UK Revenue-Expenditure Nexus”, Journal of Policy Modeling, 32, 478–87.
53. Şen, Hüseyin, Sağbaş, İsa ve Keskin, Abdullah (2007), Bütçe Açıkları ve Açık Finansman Politikası Teori ve Türkiye Uygulaması, Ankara: Orion Yayınevi.
54. Tatoğlu Yerdelen, F. (2012), Panel Veri Ekonometrisi, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
55. Terzi, H. ve S. Oltulular (2006), “Harcama-Vergi Geliri Hipotezi: Türkiye Örnegi”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 20(2), 1-18.
56. Tüğen, K. (1997), Bütçe Açıkları ve Açığın Finansmanında İç Borçlanmanın Rolü (1980 Sonrası Türkiye Deneyimi), İzmir: Bilim Ofset.
57. Vamvoukas, G.A. (2011), "The Tax-Spend Debate with An Application to The EU”, Economic Issues, 16(1), 65-88, March.
58. Von Furstenberg, G. M., R. J. Green, ve J. Jeong (1985), “Have Taxes Led Government Expenditures? The United States as A Test Case”, Journal of Public Policy, 5 (3), 321-348.
59. Wahid, N.M. (2008), “An Empirical Investigation on the Nexus Between Tax Revenue and Government Spending: The Case of Turkey”, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 16, 46-51.
60. Yamak, R. ve Z. Abdioğlu (2012), “Ampirik Bağlamda Toplam ve Alt Kalemler Bazında Kamu Harcamaları ve Kamu Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye Örneği”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 30 (1), 173-193.
61. Young, A. (2009), "Tax-Spend or Fiscal Illusion?" Cato Journal 29, 3.
62. Zapf, M. ve J. E. Payne (2009), “Asymmetric Modeling of the Revenue- Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Aggregate State and Local Government in the US”, Applied Economics Letters, 16, 871–876.