Vergi - Harcama Tartışması : Türkiye Örneği

Yıl 2004, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 163 - 181, 01.07.2004

İhsan Günaydın

Öz

Bu çalışma, hata düzeltme modeli ile Toda-Yamamoto 1995 tarafından geliştirilen arttırılmış VAR modeli kullanılarak Türkiye'de 1987:1-2003:3 döneminde kamu harcamaları, kamu gelirleri, GSMH ve faiz oranları arasındaki kısa ve uzun dönem ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Sonuçlar dört değişken arasında uzun dönem bir denge ilişkisinin olduğunu ve vergi-harcama teorisini destekleyen hem kısa hem de uzun dönemde kamu gelirlerinden kamu harcamalarına doğru tek yönlü bir nedenselliğin olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar ayrıca gelirlerin harcamalar üzerindeki tek yönlü nedensellik etkisinin Buchanan ve Wagner tarafından hipotezleştirildiği gibi anlamlı bir şekilde negatif olduğunu göstermektedir. Böylece, Türkiye'de bütçe açıkları için optimal çözümün vergilerin artırılması olduğu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türkiye, Açık, Vergiler, Harcamalar

THE TAX-SPEND DEBATE : THE CASE OF TURKEY

Öz

This paper examines the short and long-run relationship between goverment revenues, expenditures, GNP and interest rates for Turkey for the period 1987:1-2003:3, using error correction model ECM and the augmented vector autoregressive VAR model developed in Toda-Yamamoto 1995 . The results indicate that there is one long-run equilibrium relationship among the four variables, and the causal relationship flows unidirectionally from government revenues to expentitures both in the short and long-run, providing support for the tax-spend theory.The results further reveal that the unidirectional causal impact of revenues on expentitures is significantly negative as hypothesized by Buchanan and Wagner. Thus, higher taxes seem an optimal resolution to the budget deficits in Turkey

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkey, Deficit, Taxes, Expenditures

Kaynakça

• AHIAKPOR, J.C.W., AMIRKHALKHALI, S., (1989) On the Difficulty of Eliminating Deficits with Higher Taxes:Some Canadian Evidence, Southern Economic Journal, 56, pp.24-31.
• AKÇORAO LU, A. (1999) Kamu Harcamaları, Kamu Gelirleri ve Keynesçi Politikalar: Bir Nedensellik Analizi, G.Ü. BF Dergisi, 2/99, ss.51-65.
• ANDERSON, W., WALLACE, M.S. & WARNER, J.T (1985) Goverment Spending and Taxation:What Causes What?, Southern Economic Journal, 52 (1), 630-639.
• ARGHYROU, G.M. (1998) Causal relationships between public expenditure, public receipts and gross domestic product: Greece 1965-95, Applied Economics Letters, 5, pp.727-731.
• AWOKUSE, T.O. (2003) Is the Export-Led Growth Hypothesis Valid For Canada? Canadian Journal of Economics, V.36, N.1, pp. 126-136.
• BAGHESTANI, H., McNOWN, R. (1994) Do Revenues or Expenditures Respond to Budgetary Disequilibria?, Southern Economic Journal, 61 (2), pp. 311-322.
• BLACKLEY, P.R. (1986) Causality between Revenues and Expenditures and the Size of the Federal Budget, Public Finance Quarterly, 14 (2), pp.139-156.
• BOHN, H. (1991) Budget balance through revenue or spending adjustments? Journal of Monetary Economics, 27, pp.333-359.
• BUCHANAN, J., WAGNER, R. (1978) Dialogues Concerning Fiscal Religion, Journal of Monetary Economics, pp. 627-636.
• CARNEIRO, F.G., FARIA, J.R. &BARRY, B.S. (2004), Government Revenues and Expenditures in Guinea-Bissau: Causality and Cointegration, Africa Region Working Paper No.65, pp.1-11.
• CHANG, T.,HO, Y-H. (2002) A Note on Testing “Tax-and-Spend, Spend-and-Tax or Fiscal Synchronization: The Case of China, Journal of Economic Development, V.27/1, pp. 151-160.
• CHENG, B.S.,LAI, T.W. (1997) Government Expenditure and Economic Growth in South Korea: A VAR Approach , Journal of Economic Development, V.22, pp.11-24.
• CHENG, B.S. (1999) Cointegration and Causality between Financial Development and Economic Growth in South Korea and Taiwan, Journal of Economic Development, pp.23-38.
• __________ (1999) Causality Between Taxes and Expenditures: Evidence From Latin American Countries, Journal of Economics and Finance, V.23, N.2, pp.184-192.
• CLAUDILL, S.B., LIU, W.R.&CHANG, T. (2002) Tax-and-Spend, Spend-and-Tax or Fiscal Synchronization: New Evidence for Ten Countries, Applied Economics, 34, pp.1553-1561.
• DAHLBERG, M., JOHANSON, E. (1998) The Revenues-Expenditures Nexus: Panel Data Evidence From Swedish Municipalities, Applied Economics, 30, pp. 1379-1386.
• DARRAT, A.F. (1998) Tax and Spend, or Spend and Tax? An Inquiry into the Turkish Budgetary Process Southern Economic Journal, 64 (4), pp. 940-956.
• _________ (2002) Budget Balance Through Spending Cuts or Tax Adjustments? Contemporary Economic Policy, V.20, N.3, pp.221-233.
• EDWARDS, S. (1995) Public Sector Deficits and Macroeconomic Stability in Developing Countries, Budget Deficits and Debt: Issues and Options içinde, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 307-375.
• FRIEDMAN, M. (1978) The Limitations of Tax Limitation, Policy Review, Summer, pp.7-14.
• FURSTENBERG, M.G., GREEN, J. & JEONG, J.H. (1986) Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax?, The Review of Economics and Statistics, LXVIII/2, pp.179-188.
• GARCIA, S., HENIN, P. (1999) Balancing Budget Through Tax Increases or Expenditure Cuts: is it neutral? Economic Modelling, 16. pp. 591-612.
• GILBERT, C.L., (1986) Professor Hendry’s Econometric Methodology, Oxfort Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 48 (3), pp.283-307.
• GÜNAYDIN, . (2000) Türkiye’de Kamu Gelirleri ve Kamu Harcamaları Arasındaki Nedensel li kiler, SDÜ, BF Dergisi, cilt.5/, s.1 ss.55-74.
• HENDRY, D.F. (1986) Econometric Modelling with Cointegrated Veriables: An Overwiev, Oxfort Bulletion of Economics and Statistics, August, pp. 201-212.
• HONDROYIANNIS, G., PAPAPETROU, E. (1996) An Examination of the Casual Relationship between Goverment Spending and Revenue: A Cointegration Analysis, Public Choice, 89, pp. 363-374.
• HOOVER, K.D., SHEFFRIN, S.M. (1992) Causation, Spending and Taxes: Sand in the Sand box or Tax Collector for the Welfare State?, American Economic Review, 82, pp.225-248.
• HSIAO, C., (1981) Autoregressive Modelling and Money-Income Causality Detection, Journal of Monetary Economics, pp. 85-106.
• JOHANSSON, E., DAHLBERG, M. (1998) The revenues-expenditures nexus:panel data evidence from Swedish municipalities, Applied Economics, 30, pp.1379-86.
• JONES, J.D., JOULFAIN, D. (1991) Federal Goverment Expenditures and Revenues in the Early Years of the American Republic:Evidence from 1792- 1860, Journal of Macroeconomics, 13 (1) pp. 133-155.
• KATRAKILIDIS, C.D., (1997) Spending and Revenue in Greece: New Evidence From Error Correction Modelling, Applied Economic Letters, 4, pp. 387-391.
• KOLLIAS, C., MAKRYDAKIS, S. (2000) Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax? Empirical Evidence From Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, Applied Economics, 32, 533-546.
• KOREN, S., SIASSNY, A. (1995) Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax? An Empirical Investigation for Austria, Empirica, 22 (2), pp.127-149.
• LI, XIAOMING (2001) Government Revenue, Government Expenditure, and Temporal Causality: Evidence From China, Applied Economics, 33. pp.485-497.
• LIANOS, T., FOUNTAS, S. (1997) Cointegration Tests of the Profit-maximising Equilibrium in Greek Manufacturing: 1958-1991, Journal Review of Applied Economics, V.11/3, pp.439-449.
• LINCOLN, I.,HASAN, M. (1997) Tax then spend or spend then tax? Experience in the UK, 1961-93, Applied Economics Letters, 4, pp.237-239.
• MARLOW, L.M., MANAGE, N. (1987) Expenditures and receipts:Testing for causality in state and local government finances, Public Choice, 53, pp.243-255.
• MILLER, S.M.,RUSSEK, F.S (1990) Co-Integration and Error-Correction Models:The Temporal Causality between Government Taxes and Spending, Southern Economic Journal, 57 (1), pp.221-229.
• OWEYE, O., (1995) The casual relationship between taxes and expenditures in the G7 countries:cointegration and error-correction models, Applied Economics Letters, 2, pp.19-22.
• PARK, W.K. (1998) Granger Causality between Government Revenues and Expenditures in Korea, Journal of Economic Development, 23 (1), pp.145-155.
• PAYNE, E.J., EWING, T.B. (1998) Goverment Revenue-Expenditure Nexus:Evidence from Latin America, Journal of Economic Development, 23/2 pp. 57-69.
• PAYNE, J.E., (1997) The tax-spend debate:the case of Canada, Applied Economics Letters, 4, pp.381-386.
• _________ (1998) The tax-spend debate:Time series evidence from state budgets,Public Choice, 95, pp.307-320.
• PINAR, A. (1998) A Model of Government Expenditures in Turkey, Yapı Kredi Economic Review, V.9, N.2, pp. 55-71.
• PRADHAN, G.,UPADHYAYA, K.P. (2001) The Impact of Budget Deficits on National Saving in the USA, Applied Economics, 33, pp.1745-1750.
• PROVOPOULOS, G., ZAMBARAS, A., (1991) Testing for causality between goverment spending and taxation, Public Choice, 68, pp.277-282.
• QUINTIERI, B.,BELLE, M., (1997) Causality Between Public Expenditure and Taxation, Evidence from the Italian case, Budgetary Policy, Modelling Public Expenditures in içinde, London and Newyork, 214-234.
• RAM, R. (1988) Additional Evidence on Causality between Government Revenue and Government Expenditure, Southern Economic Journal, 54 (1), pp.763-769.
• REDDICK, C.G. (2002) Canadian Provincial Budget Outcomes: A Long-Run and Short-Run Perspective, Financial Accountability&Management, 18/4, pp.355-82.
• ROSS, K.L, PAYNE, J.E. (1998) A Re-Examination of Budgetary Disequilipria, Public Finance Review, 26 (1), Jenuary, pp.67-79.
• SHAH, A., BAFFERS, J. (1994) Causality and comovement between taxes and expenditures: Historical evidence from Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, Journal of Development Economics, 44, pp.311-331.
• SHAN, J., TIAN, G.G. (1998) Causality Between Exports and Economic Growth: The Empirical Evidence From Shanghai, Australian Economic Papaers, pp.195- 202.
• TODA, H.Y., YAMAMOTO, T. (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregression with possibly integrated processes, Journal of Econometrics, 66, pp.225-250.