Türkiye’de Kamu Harcamaları ile Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Fourier Eşbütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de 81 il düzeyinde vergi gelirleri ve kamu harcamaları arasındaki ilişkinin 2004-2020 dönemine ait veri seti kullanılarak araştırılmasıdır. Çalışmada iller düzeyinde vergi gelirleri ile kamu harcamalarının GSYH içindeki payları kullanılmıştır. Panel Fourier Eşbütünleşme analizine göre vergi gelirleri ile kamu harcamaları arasında her ne kadar bazı illerde eşbütünleşik bir ilişki tespit edilemese de panel genelinde değişkenler arasında uzun dönem eşbütünleşik bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Panel Fourier Granger Nedensellik Testi sonuçlarına göre, panel genelinde Türkiye’de mali senkronizasyon hipotezinin geçerli olduğu sonucuna ulaşılırken, iller düzeyinde 19 ilde vergi-harcama hipotezinin, 13 ilde harcama-vergi hipotezinin, 2 ilde mali senkronizasyon hipotezinin ve 47 ilde kurumsal farklılık hipotezinin geçerli olduğuna yönelik bulgulara ulaşılmıştır. İllerin çoğunda kurumsal ayrılık hipotezinin geçerli olması vergi gelirlerinin artırılıp kamu harcamalarının azaltılması sonucu bütçe açıklarının kapatılması amacına hizmet edebilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Vergi-harcama
• harcama-vergi
• mali senkronizasyon
• kurumsal ayrılık

The Relationship Between Public Expenditures and Tax Revenues in Turkey: Fourier Cointegration and Causality Analysis

Öz

This study investigates the relationship between tax revenues and public expenditures at the level of 81 provinces in Turkey, using the data set for 2004-2020. The study used the shares of tax revenues and public expenditures in GDP at the provincial level. The results of the Panel Fourier Co-integration analysis, although a cointegrated relationship cannot be detected between tax revenues and public expenditures in some provinces, a long-term cointegrated relationship has been found between the variables throughout the panel. The Panel Fourier Granger Causality Test results conclude that Turkey's fiscal synchronisation hypothesis is valid. In contrast, the tax-spend hypothesis is valid in 19 provinces, the spend-tax hypothesis is valid in 13 provinces, the fiscal synchronisation hypothesis is valid in 2 provinces, and the institutional separation hypothesis is valid in 47 provinces. The validity of the institutional separation hypothesis in most provinces will serve the purpose of closing the budget deficits due to increasing tax revenues and reducing public expenditures.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tax-spend
• spend-tax
• fiscal synchronisation
• institutional separation

Kaynakça

1. Afonso, A. ve Rault, C. (2009). Spend-and-tax: A panel data investigation for the EU. Economics Bulletin, 29(4), 2542–2548.
2. Ahiakpor, J. C. W. ve Amirkhalkhali, S. (1989). On the difficulty of eliminating deficits with higher taxes: ome Canadian evidence. Southern Economic Journal 56(1), 24-31.
3. Akar, S. (2014). Türkiye’de bütçe gelir ve harcamalarının ampirik analizi. BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar, 8(1), 141-159.
4. Akbulut, H. ve Yereli, A.B. (2016). Kamu gelirleri ve kamu harcamaları nedensellik ilişkisi: 2006-2015 dönemi için Türkiye örneği. Sosyoekonomi, 24(27), 103-119
5. Akçağlayan, A. ve Kayıran, M. (2010). Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ve gelirleri: nedensellik ilişkisi üzerine bir araştırma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(2), 129146.
6. Akçoraoğlu, A. (1999). Kamu harcamaları, kamu gelirleri ve keynesci politikalar: bir nedensellik analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 2, 51-65.
7. Aksu, H., Künü, S ve Bozma, G. (2017). Mali senkronizasyon hipotezi Türkiye için geçerli mi?. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 31(2), 311-324.
8. 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. https://www.kau.edu.sa/files/320/researches/51715_21850.pdf

9. Al-Zeaud, H. A. (2015). The causal relationship between government revenue and expenditure in Jordan. Int. J. Manag. Bus. Res., 5(2), 117-127. https://ijmbr.srbiau.ac.ir/article_6383_098a15852a8028ba840ff8ff48cf6bd6.pdf
10. Aminu, A. ve Raifu. I.A. (2018). Dynamic nexus between government revenues and expenditures in Nigeria: evidence from asymmetric causality and cointegration methods. MPRA Paper 97880, University Library of Munich, Germany.
11. Anderson W., Wallace, M.S. ve Warner, J.T. (1986). Government spending and taxation: what causes what?. Southern economic association, 52(3), 630-639.
12. Apergis, N., Payne, J. E. ve Saunoris, J. W. (2012). Tax-spend nexus in Greece: are there asymmetries?. Journal of Economic Studies, 39 (3), 327–336.
13. Babarinde, G. F., Adewusi, O. A., Abdulmajeed, I. T. ve Angyu, P. A. (2021). Public revenue-expenditure nexus: a test of fiscal synchronization hypothesis in Nigeria. Journal of Business School, 4 (3), 250-258.
14. Baghestani, H. ve McNown, R. (1994). Do revenues or expenditures respond to budgetary disequilibria?. Southern Economic Journal, 60, 311-322.
15. Barro, R. J. (1979). On the determination of the public debt. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 940-971.
16. Buchanan, J. M. ve Wagner, R.W. (1977). Democracy in deficit: the political legacy of lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press.
17. Chang, T. ve Chiang, G. (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.
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. Çavuşoğlu, A.T. (2008). Türkiye’de kamu gelirleri ile kamu harcamaları arasındaki ilişki üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 143-160.
20. Çetintaş ve Baygonuşova (2017). Kamu harcamaları ve gelirleri arasındaki ilişkinin test edilmesi: Kırgızistan örneği. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (49), 1-26.
21. Dalena, M. ve Magazzino, C. (2012). Public expenditure and revenue in Italy, 1862-1993. Economic Notes, 41(3), 145–172.
22. Dökmen, G. (2012). Kamu harcamaları ve kamu gelirleri arasındaki ilişki: panel nedensellik analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2), 115-143.
23. Eita, J. H. ve Mbazima, D. (2008). The causal relationship between government expenditure and revenue in Namibia. MPRA Paper No. 9154, University of Munich.
24. Enders, W. ve Jones, P. (2016). Grain prices, oil prices andmultiple smooth breaks in a VAR. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 20(4), 399–419.
25. Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2012). A unit root test using a fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 574-599.
26. Ewing, B.T., Payne, J. E., Thompson, M.A. ve Al-Zoubi, M.T. (2006). Government expenditures and revenues: evidence from asymmetric modeling. Southern Economic Journal, 73(1),190-200.
27. Fasano, U. ve Wang, Q. (2002). Testing the relationship between government spending and revenue: evidence from GCC countries. IMF, Working Paper, No. 21.
28. Friedman, M. (1978). The limitations of tax limitation. Policy Review 5, 7-14.
29. Furstenberg, G.M., Green, R.J. ve Jeong, J. (1986). Tax and spend, or spend and tax?.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(2), 179-188
30. Gounder,N., Narayan, P.K. ve Prasad, A. (2007). An empirical investigation of the relationship between government revenue and expenditure. International Journal of Social Economics, 34(3),147- 158
31. Gujarati, D.N. ve Porter, D.C. (2012). Temel ekonometri (Çev: Ü. Şenesen, G.G. Şenesen), Literatür Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
32. Günaydın, İ. (2004). Vergi‐harcama tartışması: Türkiye örneği. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5(2), 163‐181.
33. 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.
34. Hondroyiannis, G., ve E. Papapetrou (1996). An examination of the causal relationship between government spending and revenue: acointegration analysis. Public Choice, 89, 363-374.
35. Hussain, H. (2004). On the causal relationship between government expenditure and tax revenue in Pakistan. The Lahore Journal of Economics, 9(2), 105-118.
36. Hussaini, A., Usman, M., Falgore, J. Y., Sani, S. S., Abubakar, I. ve Adamu, K. (2021). An investigation of causal relationships between government revenue and expenditure in Nigeria, using engle cointegration approach, FUDMA Journal of Sciences (FJS), 5(4), 222-228
37. Jiranyakul, K. (2022). Is the Thai government revenue-spending nexus asymmetric?, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 1-16.
38. Kamacı, A. ve Kurt, O. (2021). Kamu harcamaları ile vergi gelirleri ilişkisi: pandemi öncesi ve sonrası için bir değerlendirme. Journal of Life Economics, 8(4): 455-462.
39. Kanca, O.C. (2018). Vergi-harcama etkileşimi: mahalli idareler bütçesi üzerine bir deneme. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(3), 254-278.
40. Karaş, G. ve Selen, U. (2021). Vergi yükü, borç yükü ve harcama yükü ilişkisi: OECD ülkeleri örneği. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 70, 45-61
41. Katrakilidis, C.P. (1997). Spending and revenues in Greece: new evidence from error correction modelling. Applied Economics Letters, 4(6), 387-391.
42. Kaya, A. ve Şen, H. (2013), How to achieve and sustain fiscal discipline in Turkey: rising taxes, reducing government spending or a combination of both?. Romanian Journal of Fiscal Policy, 4(1), 1-26.
43. Kollias, C. ve Makrydakis, S. (2000) Tax and spend or spend and tax? empirical evidence from Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Applied Economics, 32(5), 533-546.
44. Kollias, C. ve Paleologou, S. (2006). Fiscal policy in the European Union: tax and spend, spend and tax, fiscal synchronisation or institutional separation?. Journal of Economic Studies, 33(2), 108-120.
45. Li, X. (2001). Government revenue, government expenditure, and temporal causality: evidence from China. Applied Economics, 23, 485- 497.
46. Manage, N. ve M. L. Marlow (1986). The causal relation between federal expenditures and receipts. Southern Economic Journal, 52(3), 617-29.
47. Miller, S.M. ve Russek, F.S. (1990). Co-Integration and error-correction models: the temporal causality between governmenttaxes and spending. Southern Economic Journal, 57(1), 221-229
48. Mithani, D.M. ve Khoon, G.S. (1999). Causality between government expenditure and revenue in malaysia: a seasonal cointegration test. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 16(1), 68-79
49. Narayan, P.K. ve Narayan, S. (2006). Government revenue and government expenditure nexus: evidence from developing countries. Applied Economics, 38(3), 285-291.
50. Nazlıoğlu, Ş. ve Karul, Ç. (2017). A panel stationarity test with gradual structural shifts: Re-investigate the international commodity price shocks. Economic Modelling, 61, 181-192.
51. Olayeni, R. O., Tiwari, A. K. ve Wohar, M. E. (2020). Fractional frequency flexible Fourier form (FFFFF) for panel cointegration test. Applied Economics Letters, 28(6), 1-5.
52. 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.
53. Owoye, O. ve Onafowora, O. A. (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
54. Park, W. K. (1998). Granger causality between government revenues and expenditures in Korea. Journal of Economic Development, 23 (1), 145-55.
55. Payne, J. (1998). The tax-spend debate: time series evidence from state budgets. Public Choice, 95, 307-320. Peacock, A. ve Wiseman, J. (1961). The growth of public expenditure in the United Kingdom, London: Allen and Unwin.
56. Ram, R (1988). Additional evidence on causality between government revenues and government expenditure. Southern Economic Journal, 54(3), 617– 628.
57. 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, 478–487.
58. Tashevska, B. (2018). The tax-spend debate–review of the empirical literature. Annual of the Faculty of Economics, 53: 467-484.
59. Tashevska, B., Trenovski, B. ve Trpkova-Nestorovska, M. (2020). The government revenue expenditure nexus in Southeast Europe: a bootstrap panel granger-causality approach. Eastern European Economics, 58(4), 309-326.
60. Wahid, N.M. (2008). An empirical ınvestigation on the nexus between tax revenue and government spending: the case of Turkey. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 16, 46-51.
61. Yamak, R. ve Abdioğlu, Z. (2012). Ampirik bağlamda toplam ve alt kalemler bazında kamu harcamaları ve kamu gelirleri arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye örneği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 30(1), 173-193
62. Yılancı, V., Şaşmaz, M. Ü. ve Öztürk, Ö. F. (2020). Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ile vergi gelirleri arasındaki ilişki: frekans alanda asimetrik testinden kanıtlar. Sayıştay Dergisi, 31(116), 121-139
63. Young A.T. (2009). Tax-spend or fiscal illusion?. CATO Journal, 29(3), 469–485.
64. Zapf, M. ve Payne, J.M. (2009). Asymmetric modelling of the revenue-expenditure nexus: evidence from aggregate state and local government in the US. Applied Economics Letters, 16(9), 871-876.