The Association Between Tax Revenues and Government Expenditures: Econometric Evidence from Selected Economies

Öz

This research studies the tax revenue-government expenditure relationship in four selected economies: the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), South Africa, and South Korea. In this respect, this study utilizes the augmented autoregressive distributed lag model and Toda-Yamamoto causality test, which allow time series to be integrated of different orders, to analyze the annual data covering the 1972-2021 period. The evidence reveals that the tax-and-spend hypothesis is valid in the USA and S. Africa, with a significant positive long-run effect of revenues on expenditures. Moreover, the findings support the spend-and-tax hypothesis for S. Korea, while the institutional separation hypothesis is valid in the UK. Relevant policy implications are suggested for these economies based on the research results.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tax Revenue
• Government Expenditure
• Cointegration
• Causality

Vergi Hasılatı ve Kamu Harcamaları İlişkisi: Seçilmiş Ekonomilerden Ekonometrik Bulgular

Öz

Bu çalışmada vergi hasılatı-kamu harcamaları ilişkisi, seçilmiş dört ekonomi (Amerika Birleşik Devletleri-ABD, Birleşik Krallık-BK), Güney Afrika-GA) ve Güney Kore-GK)) için araştırılmıştır. Bu kapsamda zaman serilerinin farklı mertebelerde durağan olmasına izin veren, genişletilmiş otoregresif dağıtılmış gecikmeli model ve Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi kullanılarak 1972-2021 dönemini kapsayan yıllık veriler incelenmiştir. Bulgulara göre vergilendir ve harca hipotezi ABD ve Güney Afrika’da geçerlidir ve uzun dönemde vergi hasılatı, kamu harcamalarını artırmaktadır. Ayrıca sonuçlar G. Kore’de harca ve vergilendir hipotezinin; Birleşik Krallık’ta ise kurumsal ayrışma hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bulgular temel alınarak ilgili ülkeler üzerine politika çıkarımları sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Vergi Geliri
• Kamu Harcaması
• Eşbütünleşme
• Nedensellik

Kaynakça

1. Akram, V. and Rath, B.N. (2019). Is there any evidence of tax-and-spend, spend-and-tax or fiscal synchronization from panel of Indian state? Applied Economics Letters, 26(18): 1544–1547.
2. Apergis, N., Payne, J.E. and Saunoris, J.W. (2012). Tax‐spend nexus in Greece: Are there asymmetries? Journal of Economic Studies, 39(3): 327–336.
3. Baghestani, H. and McNown, R. (1994). Do revenues or expenditures respond to budgetary disequilibria? Southern Economic Journal, 61(2): 311.
4. Barro, R.J. (1979). On the determination of the public debt. Journal of Political Economy, 87(5, Part 1): 940–971.
5. Brown, R.L., Durbin, J. and Evans, J.M. (1975). Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time source. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 37(2): 149-192.
6. Buchanan, J.M. and Wagner, R.E. (1977). Democracy in deficit: The political legacy of Lord Keynes (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press. Retrieved from https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/wagner-democracy-in-deficit-the-political-legacy-of-lord-keynes
7. Bulut, E. ve Çil, D. (2024). Kamu harcamaları ve vergi gelirleri arasındaki asimetrik nedensellik ilişkisi: Geçiş ekonomileri örneği. Sosyoekonomi, 32(60): 317–338.
8. 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.

9. Dickey, D.A. and Fuller, W.A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366): 427–431.
10. Didinmez, İ. ve Günel, T. (2022). Mali yanılsama hipotezi çerçevesinde vergi gelirleri ve kamu harcamaları ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. International Journal of Public Finance, 7(2): 385–406.
11. Dünya Bankası. (2023). Featured Indicators [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
12. Dünya Bankası. (2024). Central government debt, total (% of GDP) - United States, South Africa, Korea, Rep., United Kingdom [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.DOD.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=US-ZA-KR-GB
13. Ekinci, A.A. (2020). Causality between excise tax revenue and government spending in OECD countries. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(4): 721–741.
14. Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T.J. and Stock, J.H. (1996). Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 64(4): 813–836.
15. Franses, P.H. and McAleer, M. (1998). Cointegration analysis of seasonal time series. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(5): 651–678.
16. Friedman, M. (1979). The limitations of tax limitation. In B. B. Zellner (Ed.), Policy studies: Review annual (Volume 3) (pp.565–572). Routledge.
17. Güngül, M. ve Güllü, M. (2024). Kamu harcamaları ile kamu gelirleri arasındaki ilişki: Seçilmiş üst-orta gelir grubu ülkeler için yatay kesit bağımlılığı altında ampirik bir analiz. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 20(1): 63–85.
18. Gurdal, T., Aydin, M. and Inal, V. (2021). 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, 54(2): 305–337.
19. Hoover, K.D. and Sheffrin, S.M. (1992). Causation, spending, and taxes: Sand in the sandbox or tax collector for the welfare state? The American Economic Review, 82(1): 225–248.
20. 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.
21. Karadeniz, Y. (2023). Vergi gelirleri ve kamu harcamaları arasındaki ilişki: Seçilmiş ülkelerden kanıtlar. Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 33(175): 109–130.
22. Karakas, M. and Turan, T. (2019). The government spending-revenue nexus in CEE countries: Some evidence for asymmetric effects. Prague Economic Papers, 28(6): 633–647.
23. Karaş, G., Sağdıç, E.N. ve Gözen, S. (2023). Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ile vergi gelirleri arasındaki ilişki: Fourier eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizi. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(20): 294–311.
24. Kaya, H.F. and Arslan, Ş.N. (2020). The government revenue–expenditure nexus: Asymmetric causality test. Current Research in Social Sciences, 6(2): 170–178.
25. Kirikkaleli, D. and Ozbeser, B. (2023). Government expenditures and tax revenues in the United States of America. SAGE Open, 13(1): 215824402311612.
26. Martin, G.M. (2000). US deficit sustainability: A new approach based on multiple endogenous breaks. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(1): 83–105.
27. McNown, R., Sam, C.Y. and Goh, S.K. (2018). Bootstrapping the autoregressive distributed lag test for cointegration. Applied Economics, 50(13): 1509–1521.
28. Meltzer, A.H. and Richard, S.F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5): 914–927.
29. Narayan, P.K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17): 1979–1990.
30. Nsor-Ambala, R. and Asafo-Adjei, E. (2023). The government revenue – expenditure nexus in Ghana: A wavelet analysis. Cogent Economics and Finance, 11(1): 1–28.
31. Nzimande, N.P. and Ngalawa, H. (2022). Tax-spend or spend-tax? The case of Southern Africa. Economies, 10(4): 85.
32. OECD. (2024). General Government Deficit [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-deficit.htm
33. Payne, J.E. (1998). The tax-spend debate: Time series evidence from state budgets. Public Choice, 95: 307–320.
34. Payne, J.E. (2003). A survey of the international empirical evidence on the tax-spend debate. Public Finance Review, 31(3): 302–324.
35. Peacock, A.T. and Wiseman, J. (1979). Approaches to the analysis of government expenditure growth. Public Finance Quarterly, 7(1): 3–23.
36. Pesaran, M.H. and Shin, Y. (1995). An autoregressive distributed-lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. In S. Strom (Ed.), Econometrics and economic theory in the 20th century (pp. 371–413). Cambridge University Press.
37. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R.J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3): 289–326.
38. Phillips, P.C.B. and Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2): 335–346.
39. Pope, T. and Waters, T. (2016). A survey of the UK tax system (IFS Briefing Note BN09). Retrieved from https://ifs.org.uk/publications/survey-uk-tax-system
40. Raza, S.A., Hassan, S.Z. and Sharif, A. (2019). Asymmetric relationship between government revenues and expenditures in a developing economy: Evidence from a non-linear model. Global Business Review, 20(5): 1179–1195.
41. Salvi, M. and Schaltegger, C. A. (2023). Tax more or spend less? Historical evidence from Switzerland’s federal budget plans. International Tax and Public Finance, 30(3): 678–705.
42. Sam, C.Y., McNown, R. and Goh, S.K. (2019). An augmented autoregressive distributed lag bounds test for cointegration. Economic Modelling, 80: 130–141.
43. Simionescu, M. and Cifuentes-Faura, J. (2024). Analyzing the causality between revenues and expenditures in Spanish municipalities and its policy implications. Economia Politica, 41(1): 25-45.
44. Tashevska, B., Trenovski, B. and 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.
45. Toda, H.Y. and Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1–2): 225–250.
46. Türe, H. ve Akdi, Y. (2006). Mevsimsel eşbütünleşme: Tüketim ve GSYİH. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 21(242): 101–113.
47. Wagner, R.E. (1976). Revenue structure, fiscal illusion, and budgetary choice. Public Choice, 25(1): 45–61.
48. Zülfüoğlu, Ö. ve Söylemez, A.O. (2021). Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ile vergiler arasındaki ilişkinin doğrusal olmayan niteliği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(4): 697–712.