Kamu Sosyal Harcamaları ve Gelir Eşitsizliği: OECD Ülkeleri Kapsamında Bir Analiz

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 1 - 16, 30.12.2022

Mete Dibo

Öz

Bireyler arasındaki eşitsizliklerin azaltılmasında olduğu gibi diğer piyasa aksaklıklarının giderilmesinde de devletin tutumunun ne olması gerektiğine ilişkin yaklaşımlar geçmişten günümüze kadar tartışılagelmiştir. Klasik iktisadi ve mali yaklaşımı benimseyenlere göre ekonomik hayata yönelik devlet müdahaleleri ekonomide istenen amaçlara ulaşılmasında olumlu bir katkı yaratmazken fonksiyonel mali görüşe göre ise devletin elinde bulunan araçları kullanarak sosyal ve ekonomik etkiler yaratması mümkün olabilmektedir. Söz konusu iki temel yaklaşımın aynı anda geçerli olabilmesi de mümkün olabilir. Buna göre belirli bir noktaya kadar sosyal transfer ve/veya vergiler arttırılırken eşitsizlik azalmaktayken bu noktadan sonra yapılan transferler tersi bir etki
ortaya çıkarabilecektir. İlgili yaklaşım çerçevesinde çalışmada 20 OECD ülkesi kapsamında 2004-2017 dönemine ilişkin panel veri analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Test sonuçlarına göre sosyal transfer harcamalarının milli gelir içindeki payı belirli bir düzeye kadar eşitsizliği azaltırken bu noktayı aşması durumunda ise etki tersine dönmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eşitsizlik, Sosyal Harcamalar, Kamu Müdahalesi

Public Social Expenditures and Income Inequality: An Analysis on OECD Countries

Öz

Approaches regarding the role of the state in reducing inequalities between individuals and eliminating other market failures have been discussed from past to present. On one hand, according to the classical economic and fiscal approaches, which adopts the natural order principle, government interventions towards inequality do not make a positive contribution in achieving the desired goals in the economy. On the other hand, according to the functional economic-financial view, it is possible for governments to create social and economic effects by using the economic-financial tools they have. It may also be possible for these two approaches to be valid at the same time. Accordingly, while expenditure and/or taxes are increased up to a certain point, inequality decreases. However, after this point, increasing expenditures or taxes may have the opposite effect. Within the scope of the relevant approach, in this study panel data analysis is conducted by including 20 OECD countries for the period 2004-2017. According to the test results, the increase in social public expenditures as a percentage of national income decreases inequality to a certain level while the effect reverses if it exceeds this point.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Inequality, Social Expenditures, Public Intervention

Kaynakça

• Açıkgöz, E. (2012). Finansal Sıkıntıyı Belirleyen Faktörlerin Tespiti: IMKB İmalat Sektörü Uygulaması. Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi SBE İşletme Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi, Zonguldak.
• Aktan, C.C. (2019). Devlet Felsefesi: Eleştirel Düşünceler. Emek ve Toplum, 8(22), 239–254.
• Aktaş, E. E., & Dokuzoğlu, S. (2021). Sosyal Transfer Harcamaları-Gelir Eşitsizliği İlişkisi: Karşılaştırmalı Panel Nedensellik Analizi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 59, 119–140.
• Alamanda (2020). The Effect of Government Expenditure. Info Artha, 4(1), 1–11.
• Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1996). Income Distribution, Political Instability, and Investment. European Economic Review, 40, 1203–1228.
• Babones, S. J. (2008). Income Inequality and Population Health: Correlation and Causality. Social Science and Medicine, 66(7), 1614–1626.
• Balseven, H., & Tuğcu, C. T. (2017). Analyzing the Effects of Fiscal Policy on Income Distribution: A Comparison between Developed and Developing Countries. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(2), 377–383.
• Barber, J. G. (2001). Relative Misery and Youth Suicide. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 49–57.
• Baum, C. F. (2001). Residual Diagnostics for Cross-section Time Series Regression Models. The Stata Journal, 1(1), 101–104.
• Beck, K., & Mozdzeń, M. (2020). Institutional Determinants of Budgetary Expenditures. A BMA-Based Re-Evaluation of Contemporary Theories for OECD Countries. Sustainability, 12(10), 4104.
• Cobham, A., Schlögl, L., & Sumner, A. (2016). Inequality and the Tails: The Palma Proposition and Ratio. Global Policy, 7(1), 25–36.
• Çakmak, O. (2010). Kamu Maliyesinde Seçme Yazılar. İçinde: Tolga Saruç, Temel Gürdal, Nurullah Altun (Ed.), İktisat Teorisi Açısından Kamu Girişimciliği ve Özel Girişimcilik: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz (s. 367–416). Sakarya: Sakarya Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Çınar, S., & Öçalık, M. (2014). Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Mali Sürdürülebi̇li̇rli̇k: Panel Veri Anali̇zi̇. Journal of Yasar University, 9(33), 5597–5622.
• Dabla-Norris, E., Kochhar, K., Suphaphiphat, N., Ricka, F., & Tsounta, E. (2015). Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective (15/13; IMF Staff Discussion Note).
• D’Agostino, G., Pieroni, L., & Scarlato, M. (2020). Social Transfers and Income Inequality in OECD Countries. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, (52), 313–327.
• Dahan, M., & Strawczynski, M. (2013). Fiscal Rules and the Composition of Government Expenditures in OECD Countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(3), 484–504.
• De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for Cross-sectional Dependence in Panel-data Models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482–496.
• Dobre, I., Jianu, I., Bodislav, D. A., Radulescu, V., & Burlacu, S. (2019). The Implicatıons of Institutional Specificities on the Income Inequalities Drivers in European Union. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 53(2), 59–76.
• Doumbia, D., & Kinda, T. (2019). Reallocating Public Spending to Reduce Income Inequality: Can It Work? (IMF Working Paper No. 19/188).
• Du, G., Sun, C., & Fang, Z. (2015). Evaluating the Atkinson Index of Household Energy Consumption in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, (51), 1080–1087.
• Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125). Academic Press.
• Eibner, C., & Evans, W. N. (2005). Relative Deprivation, Poor Health Habits, and Mortality. Source: The Journal of Human Resources, 40(3), 591–620.
• Eroğlu, N., Altaş, D., Ün, T., & Ulu, M. İ. (2017). OECD Ülkelerinde Sosyal Yardım Harcamalarının Gelir Dağılımına Etkisi: Panel Veri Analizi. Uluslararası Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(3), 335–354.
• Ersoy, İ., & Baykal, B. (2016). The Impact of Selected Economic Determinants on Income Inequality: The Case of The EU. Marmara Journal of European Studies, 24(1), 27–42.
• Fletcher, M., & Guttmann, B. (2013). Income Inequality in Australia. Economic Roundup. (2), 35–54.
• Fournier, J.-M., & Johansson, A. (2016). The Effect of the Size and the Mix of Public Spending on Growth and Inequality (Economics Department Working Paper No. 1344).
• Goudswaard, K., & Caminada, K. (2010). The Redistributive Effect of Public and Private Social Programmes : A Cross-Country Empirical Analysis, International Social Security Review. (63), 1–19.
• Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. (2009). Basic Econometrics (5th ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill.
• Guloglu, B., & Ivrendi, M. (2010). Output Fluctuations: Transitory or Permanent? The Case of Latin America. Applied Economics Letters, 17(4), 381–386.
• Guzi, M., & Kahanec, M. (2018). Income Inequality and the Size of Government: A Causal Analysis (IZA Discussion Paper Series No. 12015), Bonn.
• Güder, Süleyman (2020). Eşitsizlikle Mücadelede Başka Bir Yol Mümkün. İnsan ve Toplum, 4(10), 471–504.
• Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust Standard Errors for Panel Regressions with Cross-Sectional Dependence. Stata Journal, 7(3), 281–312.
• Immervoll, H., & Richardson, L. (2011). Redistribution Policy and Inequality Reduction in OECD Countries: What Has Changed in Two Decades? (No. 122; OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers).
• İlgün, M. F. (2015). Kamu Sosyal Harcamalarının Gelir Dağılımı Üzerindeki Etkisi: OECD Ülkelerine Yönelik Panel Veri Analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(4), 493–516.
• Jajkowicz, O., & Drobiszová, A. (2015). The Effect of Corruption on Government Expenditure Allocation in OECD Countries. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63(4), 1251–1259.
• Joumard, I., Pisu, M., & Bloch, D. (2012). Tackling Income Inequality: The Role of Taxes and Transfers. OECD Journal: Economic Studies, 2012(1), 37-70.
• Kalkavan, H., & Ersin, İ (2020). Sosyal Harcamalar ile Gelir Dağılımı Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi: OECD Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Sosyal Güvence Dergisi, (17), 265–282.
• Koç, K., & İşlek, H. (2020). BRICS-T Ülkelerinde Tarımsal Destekler ve Tarımsal Üretim Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Bootstrap Nedensellik Analizi. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Davranış Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(12), 284–295.
• Kozuharov, S., & Petkovski, V. (2017). The Impact of Social Transfers on Inequality Measured by GINI Index: The Example of Macedonia. UTMS Journal of Economics, 9(1), 46–61.
• Lindert, P. H. (1996). What Limits Social Spending? Explorations in Economic History, 33(1), 1–34.
• McKay, A. (2002). Defining and Measuring Inequality. (Erişim: 14.06.2021), https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/3804.pdf
• Nguyen, V. C., Nguyen, T. T., & Nguyen, H. T. (2020). Government Ability, Bank-Specific Factors and Profitability: An Insight from Banking Sector of Vietnam. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 12(4), 415–424.
• OECD (2021). Social Spending. (Erişim: 10.06.2021), https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm
• OECD (2011). Government at a Glance 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2019a). Inequality and Income. (Erişim: 21.09.2021), https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/689afed1-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/689afed1-en
• OECD (2019b). Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle Class. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2021). Government at a Glance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2015). Income Inequality and Health: A Causal Review. Social Science and Medicine, (128), 316–326.
• Pigou, A. C. (1960). A Study in Public Finance (3rd ed.). Macmillan & CO LTD.
• Ravailion, M. (1997). Can High-Inequality Developing Countries Escape Absolute Poverty? Economics Letters, 56, 51–57.
• Rosenblad, A. K. (2020). The Mean, Variance, and Bias of the OLS Based Estimator of the Extremum of a Quadratic Regression Model for Small Samples. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 1–17. (Erişim: 23.02.2022), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03610926.2020.1782936
• Sánchez, Á., & Pérez-Corral, A. L. (2018). Government Social Expenditure and Income Inequalities in the European Union. Review of Public Economics, (4), 133–156.
• Solmaz, E., & Avcı, M. (2017). Yoksullukla Mücadelede Sosyal Koruma Harcamaları: Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 46–73.
• Stack, S. (1978). The Effect of Direct Government Involvement in the Economy on the Degree of Income Inequality: A Cross-National Study. American Sociological Review, 43(6), 880–888.
• Suryan, V. (2017). Econometric Forecasting Models for Air Traffic Passenger of Indonesia. Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum, 3(1), 33–44.
• Topuz, S. G., & Doğan, E. (2020). Transfer Harcamaları ve Gelir Eşitsizliği İlişkisi: Panel Nedensellik Analizi ile Karşılaştırmalı Bir Değerlendirme. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 35(3), 549–562.
• Truesdale, B. C., & Jencks, C. (2016). The Health Effects of Income Inequality: Averages and Disparities. Annual Review of Public Health, (37), 413–430.
• Tullock, G. (1997). Economics of Income Redistribution (2nd ed.). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
• Turgut, E., & Uçan, O. (2019). Yolsuzluğun Vergi Oranları ile Olan İlişkisinin OECD Ülkeleri Örnekleminde İncelenmesi. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(3), 1–17.
• TÜİK (2020). Sosyal Koruma İstatistikleri, 2019. (Erişim: 21.09.2021), https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Social-Protection-Statistics-2019-33668
• Ulu, M. İ. (2018). The Effect of Government Social Spending on Income Inequality in OECD: A Panel Data Analysis. International Journal of Economics Politics Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 184–202.
• Vedder, R., Gallaway, L., & Sollars, D. (1988). The Tullock-Bastiat Hypothesis, Inequality-Transfer Curve and the Natural Distribution of Income. Public Choice, 56(3), 285–294.
• Vogelsang, T. J. (2012). Heteroskedasticity, Autocorrelation, and Spatial Correlation Robust Inference in Linear Panel Models with Fixed-effects. Journal of Econometrics, 166(2), 303–319.
• Williams, K. R. (1984). Economic Sources of Homicide: Reestimating the Effects of Poverty and Inequality. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 283–289.
• Yardımcıoğlu, F., & Yayla, Y. E. (2020). Sosyal Harcamaların Gelir Dağılımı Üzerindeki Etkisi: Orta ve Doğu Avrupa Ülkeleri Örneği. Gümrük Ticaret Dergisi, 7(19), 34–48.
• Yıldırım, K., Mercan, M., & Kostakoğlu, S. F. (2013). Satın Alma Gücü Paritesinin Geçerliliğinin Test Edilmesi: Zaman Serisi ve Panel Veri Analizi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 8(3), 75–95.