CAUSALITY BETWEEN EXCISE TAX REVENUE AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN OECD COUNTRIES

Yıl 2020, , 721 - 741, 28.12.2020

Alper Aykut Ekinci

https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.623174

Cited By: 2

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between excise taxes revenues and government spending areas in OECD countries. Panel data causality analyzes were performed for 20 OECD member countries using yearly data for the 1995-2016 period to investigate the relationship between government spending in education, health, public services, defense, and social protection areas and excise tax revenues. At the end of the analysis, two-way causality relationship between excise tax and defense, education, health, general public services, and social protection spending have been observed. The results support both the spend- tax hypothesis and the tax-spend hypothesis. Furthermore, the tax-spend hypothesis is stronger in social protection spending and the spend-tax hypothesis is stronger in general public spending. Health spending strongly supports two hypotheses. It can be interpreted that the increases in defense, education, and general public services spending in the economies of OECD countries are financed by an increase in excise tax revenues. The bi-directional causality between health spending and excise tax revenue shows that both the increased excise tax revenue is directed towards health spending and excise revenues are used to cover health spending.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Excise Tax, Government Spending, Causality Analysis, Tax-Spend Hypothesis, Spend-Tax Hypothesis

OECD ÜLKELERİNDE ÖZEL TÜKETİM VERGİ GELİRİ VE DEVLET HARCAMALARI ARASINDAKİ NEDENSELLİK

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, OECD ülkelerinde tüketim vergisi gelirleri ile devlet harcama alanları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Devletin eğitim harcamaları, sağlık, kamu hizmetleri, savunma ve sosyal koruma ile tüketim vergisi gelirleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek üzere, 20 OECD üyesi ülke için 1995-2016 dönemine ait yıllık veriler ile panel veri nedensellik analizi yapılmıştır. Analizin sonunda, tüketim vergisi ile savunma, eğitim, sağlık, genel kamu hizmetleri ve sosyal koruma harcamaları arasında iki yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi saptanmıştır. Sonuçlar, hem harcama vergi geliri hipotezini hem de vergi geliri-harcama hipotezini desteklemektedir. Ayrıca, vergi geliri- harcama hipotezi, sosyal koruma harcamalarında daha güçlü iken genel kamu harcamalarında ise harcama-vergi hipotezi daha güçlüdür. Sağlık harcamaları iki hipotezi kuvvetle desteklemektedir. Savunma, eğitim ve genel kamu hizmetlerinde OECD ülkelerinde harcamaların artmasının, tüketim vergisi gelirlerindeki artışla finanse edildiği çıkarımında bulunulabilir. Sağlık harcaması ve tüketim vergisi geliri arasındaki iki yönlü nedensellik, artan tüketim vergisi gelirinin sağlık harcamalarına yönelik olduğunu ve tüketim harcamalarının sağlık harcamalarını karşılamak için kullanıldığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Özel Tüketim Vergisi, Devlet Harcamaları, Nedensellik Analizi, Harcama-Vergi Geliri Hipotezi, Vergi Geliri-Harcama Hipotezi

Kaynakça

• Akçağlayan, A., M. Kayiran (2010), “Türkiye’de Kamu Harcamaları ve Gelirleri: Nedensellik İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(2), 129-146.
• Akçoraoğlu, A. (1999),” Kamu Harcamaları, Kamu Gelirleri ve Keynesçi Politikalar: Bir Nedensellik Analizi”, Gazi Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 1(2).
• Anderson, W., M.S. Wallace, J.T. Warner (1985), “Goverment Spending and Taxation: What Causes What?”, Southern Economic Journal, 52(1), 630-639.
• Baghestani, H., R. Mcnown (1994), “Do Revenues or Expenditures Respond to Budgetary Disequilibria?”, Southern Economic Journal, 61(2), 311-322.
• Baia, J., C. Kaob (2006), “On the Estimation and Inference of a Panel Cointegration Model with Cross-Sectional Dependence”, Panel Data Econometrics Theoretical Contributions and Empirical Applications, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 3-30.
• Blackley, P.R. (1986), “Causality between Revenues and Expenditures and the size of the Federal Budget”, Public Finance Quarterly, 14(2), 139-156.
• Bohn, H. (1991), “Budget Balance Through Revenue or Spending Adjustments?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 27, 333-359.
• Boubtane, E., D. Coulibaly, C. Rault (2013), “Immigration, Unemployment and GDP in The Host Country: Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis on OECD Countries”, Economic Modelling, 33, 261-269.
• Buchanan, J.M., R.E. Wagner (1978), “Dialogues Concerning Fiscal Religion”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 4(3), 627-636.
• Bulutoğlu, K. (2003), Kamu Ekonomisine Giriş, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Çiçek, G.H., İ.S. Yavuz (2014), “Vergi-Harcama Paradoksu: Türkiye’de Belediyeler Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, (4), 17-31.
• Darrat, A.F. (2002), “Budget Balance Through Spending Cuts or Tax Adjustments?”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 20(3), 221-233.
• Elyasi, Y., M. Rahimi (2012), “The Causality between Government Revenue and Government Expenditure in Iran”, International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research, 5(1), 129-145.
• Ewing, B., J. Payne (1998), “Government Revenue-Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Latin America”, Journal of Economic Development, 23(2), 57-69.
• Friedman, M. (1978), “The Limitations of Tax Limitation”, Policy Review, (5), 7.
• Furstenberg, M.G., J. Green, J.H. Jeong (1986), “Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax?”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(2), 179-188.
• Gurdal, T., M. Aydin, V. Inal (2020), “The Relationship between Tax Revenue, Government Expenditure, and Economic Growth in G7 Countries: New Evidence from Time and Frequency Domain Approaches”, Economic Change and Restructuring, 1-33.
• Kónya, L. (2006), “Exports and Growth: Granger Causality Analysis on OECD Countries with a Panel Data Approach”, Economic Modelling, 23, 978–992.
• Koren, S., A. Stiassny (1995), “Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax? An Empirical Investigation for Austria”, Empirica, 22(2), 127-149.
• Meltzer, A.H., S.F. Richard (1981), “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government”, Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914-927.
• Miller, S.M., F.S. Russek (1990), “Co-Integration and Error-Correction Models: The Temporal Causality between Government Taxes and Spending”, Southern Economic Journal, 57(1), 221-229.
• Musgrave, R. (1966), “Principles of Budget Determination”, In Public Finance: Selected Readings, Edited by: Cameron, AH and Henderson, W. 15–27. New York: Random House.
• Nyamongo, M.E., M.M. Sichei, N.J. Schoeman (2007), “Government Revenue and Expenditure Nexus in South Africa”, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 10(2), 256-269.
• Obeng, S. (2015), “A Causality Test of the Revenue-Expenditure Nexus in Ghana” ADRRI Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 11(1), 1-19.
• OECD (2018), “General Government Spending (Indicator)”, doi: 10.1787/a31cbf4d-en (Accessed on 10 December 2018).
• Olayungbo D.O., O.F. Olayemi (2018), “Dynamic Relationships among Non-Oil Revenue, Government Spending and Economic Growth in an Oil Producing Country: Evidence from Nigeria”, Future Bus J, 4(2), 246–260.
• Oweye, O. (1995),” The Casual Relationship Between Taxes and Expenditures in The G7 Countries: Cointegration and Error-Correction Models”, Applied Economics Letters, 2, 19-22.
• Owoye, O., O.A. Onafowora (2011), “The Relationship between Tax Revenues and Government Expenditures in European Union and Non-European Union OECD Countries” Public Finance Review, 39(3), 429-461.
• Payne, E.J., T.B. Ewing (1998), “Goverment Revenue-Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Latin America”, Journal of Economic Development, 23(2), 57-69.
• Peacock, A.T., J. Wiseman (1979), “Approaches to The Analysis of Government Expenditure Growth”, Public Finance Quarterly, 7(1), 3-23.
• Pesaran, M. (2004), “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 0435.
• Quintieri, B., M. Belle (1997), “Causality Between Public Expenditure and Taxation, Evidence from the Italian Case”, In Budgetary Policy Modelling Public Expenditures, Edited by: Pantelis Capros and Daniele Meulders, 214-234. New York: Routledge.
• Ram, R. (1988), “Additional Evidence on Causality between Government Revenue and Government Expenditure”, Southern Economic Journal, 54(1), 763-769.
• Reddick, C.G. (2002), “Canadian Provincial Budget Outcomes: A Long-Run and Short-Run Perspective”, Financial Accountability and Management, 18(4), 355-82.