Analysing the Determinants of Social Expenditures in OECD Countries

Öz

Economic crises experienced by countries bring the role of the state in the economy to the agenda. Crises affect the economy in many dimensions. However, unemployment, income distribution disorder, and a decline in growth rates draw attention as the main indicators. Social transfer expenditures, which are fiscal policy instruments, are used to prevent these economic and social problems. Social transfer expenditure consists of in-kind and cash payments made by the state to low-income and vulnerable households. The aim of this study is to provide an effective economic policy proposal through the determinants of social transfer expenditure policies. The study uses panel data econometrics as a method. The study covers the period between 2007-2017. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries are included in the analysis. The share of social transfer expenditures in GDP, population, unemployment, growth, dependency ratio, and education level are taken as variables. The important feature of the study is to examine the effect of macro variables on social transfer expenditures, which is a gap in the literature. As a result of the study, while the increase in the level of education and economic growth have a decreasing effect on social transfer expenditures, the increase in the dependency ratio and unemployment have an increasing effect on social transfer expenditures.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Transfer
• OECD countries
• Panel data analysis
• Random effect model

Sosyal Harcamaların OECD Ülkelerindeki Belirleyicilerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Ülkelerin yaşadıkları ekonomik krizler devamında devletin ekonomi içerisindeki rolünü gündeme getirmektedir. Yaşanan krizler çok boyutlu olarak ekonomiyi etkiler. Ancak temel gösterge olarak işsizlik, gelir dağılımı bozukluğu ve büyüme oranlarındaki düşüş dikkat çekmektedir. Bu ekonomik ve sosyal sorunların önlenmesi için maliye politikası aracı olan sosyal transfer harcamaları kullanılmaktadır. Sosyal transfer harcaması devletin dar gelirli ve savunmasız hanelere yaptığı ayni ve nakdi ödemelerden oluşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada amaç sosyal transfer harcama politikalarının belirleyicilerinin üzerinden etkin bir ekonomi politikası önerisi sunmaktır. Çalışma panel veri ekonometrisi yöntem olarak kullanılmıştır. Çalışma 2007-2017 yılları arasını kapsamaktadır. İktisadi İşbirliği ve Gelişme Teşkilatı (OECD) üye ülkeleri analize dahil edilmiştir. Sosyal transfer harcamalarının GSYH içerisindeki payı, nüfus, işsizlik, büyüme, bağımlılık oranı ve eğitim seviyesi değişken olarak alınmıştır. Çalışmanın önemli özelliği literatürde boşluk olarak görülen makro değişkenlerin sosyal transfer harcamaları üzerine etkisinin incelenmesidir. Çalışma sonucunda eğitim seviyesindeki artış ve ekonomik büyümenin sosyal transfer harcamalarını azaltıcı etkisi ortaya çıkarken, bağımlılık oranı ve işsizlikteki artışın sosyal transfer harcamalarını artırıcı yönde etkisi ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal transfer
• OECD ülkeleri
• Panel veri analizi
• Tesadüfi etkiler modeli

Kaynakça

1. Alesina, A. ve Angeletos, G. M. (2005). Fairness and Redistribution, American Economic Review, 95(4), 960-980.
2. Alesina, A. ve Rodrik, D. (1994). Distributive Politics And Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(2), 465-490.
3. Akresh, R., Damien, W. ve Harounan, K. (2013). Cash Transfer and Child Schooling: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation of The Role of Conditionality. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. No: 6340.
4. Aktaş, E. E. ve Dokuzoğlu, S. (2021). Sosyal Transfer Harcamaları-Gelir Eşitsizliği İlişkisi: Karşılaştırmalı Panel Nedensellik İlişkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 59, 119-140.
5. Asteriou, D., Dimelis, S. ve Moudatsou, A. (2014). Globalization and Income Inequality: A Panel Data Econometric Approach for The EU27 Countries. Economic Modelling, 36, 592-599.
6. Atkinson, A. (1983). Social Justice and Public Policy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
7. Atkinson, A. (2000). A European Social Agenda: Poverty Benchmarking and Social Transfers. Euromod Working Paper. No. EM 3/00.
8. Attanasio, O. P, Oppedisano, V. ve Vera-Hernandez, M. (2015). Should Cash Transfers Be Conditional? Conditionality, Preventive Care, and Health Outcomes. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(2), 35-52.

9. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. 3rd Edition. John Wiley ve Sons Inc., New York.
10. Baltagi, B. H. ve Wu, P. X. (1999). Unequally Spaced Panel Data Regressions with AR(1) Disturbances. Econometric Theory, 15, 814-823.
11. Baird, S., McIntosh, C. ve Özler, B. (2011). Cash or Condition? Evidence from A Cash Transfer Experiment. Quartely Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1709-1753.
12. Baird, S., Hoop D. J. ve Özler, B. (2013). Income Shocks And Adolescent Mental Health. Journal of Human Resources, 48 (2), 370–403.
13. Barham, T. ve Maluccio, J. A. (2009). Eradicating Diseases: The Effect of Co Transfers on Vaccination Coverage in Rural Nicaragua. Journal of Health Economics, 28(3), 611-621.
14. Barrientos, A. (2012). Social Transfers and Growth: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Find Out? Wold Development, 40(1), 11-20.
15. Barrientos, A. (2013). Social Asistance in Developing Countries. Cambridge University Press: New York.
16. Beblo, M. ve Knaus, T. (2001). Measuring Income Inequality in Euroland. The Review of Income and Wealth, 47, 301–320.
17. Behrman, J. R. ve Hoddinott, J. (2005). Programme Evaluation with Unobserved Heterogene ity and Selective Implementation: The Mexican PROGRESA Impact on Child Nutrition. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(4), 547-569.
18. Berg, A. ve Nilsson, T. (2010). Do Liberalization and Globalization Increase Income Inequality? European Journal of Political Economy, 26, 488-505.
19. Bhargava, A., Franzni, L. ve Narendranathan, W. (1982). Serial Correlation and Fixed Effect Models. The Review of Economic Studies, 49, 533-549.
20. Blattman, C., Nathan, F. ve Martinez, S. (2014). Generating Skilled Employment İn Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence From Uganda. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(2), 697–752.
21. Bradbury, B. ve Jantti, M. (2001). Child Poverty Across Twenty-Five Countries. In: Bradbury, B. Jenkins, S. Micklewright, J. (eds): The Dynamics of Child Poverty in Industrialised Countries. Cambridge University Press, 62–91.
22. Brown, M. B. ve Forsythe, A. B. (1974). The Small Sample Behavior of Some Statistics Which Test the Equality of Several Means. Technometrics, 16, 129-132.
23. Browne, E. (2015). Social Protection: Topic Guide. GSDRC, University of Birmingham.
24. Bonilla, J., Zarzur, R.C, Handa, S., Nowlin, C., Peterman, A., Ring, H. ve Seidenfeld, D. (2017). Cash for Women’s Empowerment? A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Government of Zambia’s Child Grant Program. World Development, 95, 55-72.
25. Busemeyer, M.R. ve Neimanns, E. (2017). Conflictive Preferences Towards Social İnvestments And Transfers İn Mature Welfare States: The Cases Of Unemployment Benefits And Childcare Provision. Journal of Europen Social Policy, 27(3), 229-246.
26. Caminada, K., Goudswaard, K. ve Koster, F. (2011). Social İncome Transfers And Poverty: A Cross-Country Analysis For OECD Countries. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(2), 115-126.
27. Cantillon, B., Marx, I. ve Van den Bosch, K. (1997). The Challenge of Poverty and Social Exclusion. OECD(eds.). Towards 2000: The New Social Policy Agenda. Paris. OECD.
28. D’Agostino, R. B., Belanger, A. ve D’Agostino R. B. (1990). Suggestion for Using Powerful and İnformative Test of Normality. The American Statistician, 44(4), 316-321.
29. Das Tushar, K. (2006). Mamatha Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) as Social Safety Net: Analysis of Public Works in Odisha, India. Review of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 337-360.
30. DeBenedictis, L. F. Ve Giles, D. E. A. (1998). Diagnostics Testing in Econometrics: Variable Addition, RESET and Fourier Approximations. Ullah, A., Giles, D. E. A. (eds). Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics. Marcel Dekker, New York, 383-417.
31. de Brauw, A., Hoddinot, J. (2011). Must Conditional Cash Transfer Programs be Conditioned to be Effective? The Impact of Conditioning Transfers on School Enrollment in Mexico. Journal of Development Economcs, 96(2): 359-370.
32. de Janvry, A. ve Sadoulet, E. (2006). Making Conditional Cash Transfer Programs More Efficient: Designing for Maximum Effect of the Conditionality. World Bank Economic Review, 20(1), 1-29.
33. Dreher, A. ve Gaston, N. (2008). Has Globalization Increased Inequality? Review of International Economics, 16(3), 516-536.
34. Driscoll, J. C. ve Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation with Spatially Dependent Panel Data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 549-560.
35. Dorn, F., Fuest, C. ve Potrafke, N. (2018). Globalization and Income Inequality Revisited. CESifo Working Paper. No. 6859.
36. Edward, S. (1997). Trade Policy, Growth and Income Distribution. The American Economic Review, 87(2), 205-210.
37. Fisher, I. (1930). The Theory of Interest. New York: Macmillian.
38. Fiszbein, A. ve Schady, N. (2009). Conditonal Cash Transfers Reducing Present and Future Poverty. The World Bank Policy Research Report. Washington DC.
39. Friedman, M. (1937). The Uses of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32, 675-701.
40. Friedman, M. (1957). A Theory of Consumption Function. New Jersey: Princeton Press.
41. Gelbach, J. B. ve Pritchett, L. (2002). Is More for The Poor Less for The Poor? The Politics of Means-Tested Targeting. The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 2(1).
42. Gertier, P. (2004). Do Conditional Cash Transfers Improve Child Health? Evidence from PROGRE SA's Control Randomized Experiment. American Economic Review, 94(2), 336-341.
43. Hall, R. E. (1978). Stochastic Implications of The Life Cycle-Permanent Income Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence. The Journal of Political Economy, 86(6), 971-978.
44. Haushofer, J. ve Shapiro, J. (2017). Erratum to The Short-Term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor: Experimental Evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(4), 2057-2060.
45. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification Test in Econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271.
46. Keane, M. P ve Prasad, E.S. (2002). Inequality, Transfers, and Growth: New Evidence from the Economic Transition in Poland. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(2), 324-341.
47. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: McMillian Press.
48. Kusumawati, A. S. (2019). The Effectiveness of Targeting Social Transfer Programs in Indonesia. The Indonesian Journal of Development Planning, 3(3), 282-297.
49. Laanan, F. S., Starobin, S. S ve Eggleston, L. E. (2010). Adjustment of Communıty College Students at A Four-Year Unıversıty: Role And Relevance Of Transfer Student Capıtal For Student Retentıon. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory ve Pratice, 12(2), 175-209.
50. Levene, H. (1960). Robust Tests for Equality of Variances. Olkin, I., Ghurye, G., Hoeffding, W., Madow, W. G., Mann, H. B. (eds). Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Stanford, California: Standford University Press, 278-292.
51. Mideros, A., Franziska, G. ve Mohnen, P. (2015). Estimation of Rates of Return on Social Protection: Ex Ante Microsimulation of Social Transfers in Cambodia. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 8(1), 67-86.
52. Modigliani, F. ve Brumberg, R. H. (1954). Utility Analysis and The Consumption Function: An Interpretation of Cross-Section Data. In: Kurihara, K. K. (eds). Post-Keynesian Economics, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 388-436.
53. Sabates-Wheeler, R., Hurrel, A. ve Devereux, S. (2014). Targeting Social Transfer Programmes. WIDER Working Paper. 2014/040.
54. Samson, M. (2009). The Impact of Social Transfers on Growth, Development, Poverty and Inequality in Developing Countries. ln: Townsen, P. (ed.). Building Decent Societies. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 122-150.
55. Schultz, T. P. (2004). School Subsidies for The Poor: Evaluating The Mexican Progresa Poverty Program. Journal of Development Economics ,74 (1), 199-250.
56. Oxley, H., Dang, T., Forster, M. ve Pellizari, M. (2001). Income Inequalities and Poverty among Children and Households with Children in Selected OECD Countries. In:Vleminckx, K. and Smeeding, T. (eds): Child Well-Being, Child Poverty and Child Policy in Modern Nations: What Do We Know. Bristol: Policy Press, 371–405.
57. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Test for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics. Cambridge Working Paper in Economis No. 0435.
58. Pigou, A. C. (1947). A Study in Public Finance. London, England: MacMillan & Co.
59. Ranganathan, M. ve Lagarde, M. (2012). Promoting Healty Behaviours and Improving Health Outcomes in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Review of The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes. Preventive Medicine, 55, 95-105.
60. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. The MIT Press: London, England.
61. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2020). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi. Genişletilmiş 5. Baskı. Beta Basım Yayım, İstanbul.