TESTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND REVENUES: THE CASE OF TURKIYE AND EUROPEAN UNION (EU) COUNTRIES

Öz

This study analyzes the relationship between public expenditures and revenues for the EU-27, EU-19, and EU-13 TR countries during the period 1995-2023. The research aims to test the validity of theoretically proposed hypotheses, including the tax-spend, spend-tax, fiscal synchronization, and institutional separation hypotheses, and to determine whether these hypotheses differ across country groups. Empirical tests conducted indicate the presence of cross-sectional dependence among the EU-13 and TR, EU-19 and TR, and EU-27 and TR groups throughout the examined period. In this context, CIPS tests, which are second-generation unit root tests, were applied, and it was found that the series are integrated of order one (I(1)). After applying differencing for stationarity, it was determined that the unit root was eliminated in the series. The results of the Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality test indicate a relationship from public revenues to expenditures in all country groups, but public expenditures do not cause public revenues. These results, which support Friedman's tax-spend hypothesis, were further analyzed using GMM estimators. The analysis for the EU-13 and TR reveals a positive and significant relationship between expenditures and revenues. In the tests conducted for the EU-19 and TR, it was determined that logexp led to a 0.203% increase in the current period, while logrev resulted in a 0.450% increase. Similarly, the analysis for the EU-27 and TR found a positive and significant relationship. In this context, a 1% increase in logexp led to a 0.644% increase in the current period, while a 1% increase in logrev led to a 0.512% increase in logexp. In conclusion, it was determined that public revenues cause expenditures, but there is no differentiation among country groups.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Expenditure
• Tax Revenue
• Fiscal Synchronization
• Tax-Expenditure
• Institutional Separation Hypothesis

KAMU HARCAMALARI VE GELİRLERİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN SINANMASI: TÜRKİYE-AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ (AB) ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, 1995-2023 döneminde AB-27, AB-19 ve AB-13 TR ülkeleri için kamu harcamaları ve gelirleri arasındaki ilişkiyi analiz etmektedir. Araştırma, teorik olarak öne sürülen vergi-harcama, harcama vergi, mali senkronizasyon ve kurumsal ayrılık hipotezlerinin geçerliliğini test etmeyi ve bu hipotezlerin ülke grupları arasında farklılık gösterip göstermediğini belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yapılan ampirik testler, incelenen dönem boyunca AB-13 ve TR, AB-19 ve TR ile AB-27 ve TR grupları arasında yatay kesit bağımlılığı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu bağlamda, II. nesil birim kök testlerinden olan CIPS testleri uygulanmış ve serilerin I(1) durumda olduğu saptanmıştır. Durağanlık için fark işlemi uygulamış, serilerdeki birim kökün ortadan kalktığı tespit edilmiştir. Dumitrescu-Hurlin nedensellik testi sonuçları, tüm ülke gruplarında kamu gelirlerinden harcamalara doğru bir ilişki olduğunu ancak kamu harcamalarının kamu gelirlerine neden olmadığını göstermiştir. Friedman'ın vergi-harcama hipotezinin desteklendiği bu sonuçlar GMM tahmincileri ile daha detaylı incelenmiştir. AB-13 ve TR için yapılan analizler, harcamalar ve gelirler arasında pozitif ve anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. AB-19 ve TR için yapılan testlerde logexp'nin cari dönemde %0.203, logrev'in ise %0.450 artışa neden olduğu belirlenmiştir. AB-27 ve TR için yapılan analizlerde de pozitif ve anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Bu bağlamda, logexp'nin %1’lik artışının cari dönemde %0.644, logrev'in %1’lik artışının ise logexp'yi %0.512 artırdığı görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak kamu gelirlerinin harcamalara neden olduğu ancak ülke grupları arasında farklılaşma olmadığı belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu Harcamaları
• Kamu Gelirleri
• Mali Senkronizasyon
• Vergi-Harcama
• Kurumsal Ayrılık Hipotezi

Kaynakça

1. Adebayo, T. S., Akadiri, S. S., Akanni, E. O. ve Sadiq-Bamgbopa, Y. (2022). Does Political Risk Drive Environmental Degradation İn Brıcs Countries? Evidence From Method Of Moments Quantile Regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(21), 32287-32297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20002-w
2. Adedokun, M. W. ve Ağa, M. (2021). Financial Inclusion A Pathway To Economic Growth in Sub‐Saharan African. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 28(3), 2712-2728.
3. Afonso, A. ve Rault, C. (2008). 3-Step Analysis of Public Finances Sustainability: The Case of the European Union (Working Paper No. 2008/35; Working Papers Department of Economics). European Central Bank. https://ideas.repec.org//p/ise/isegwp/wp352008.html
4. Ahmed, N., Sheikh, A. A., Hamid, Z., Senkus, P., Borda, R. C., Wysokińska-Senkus, A. ve Glabiszewski, W. (2022). Exploring the Causal Relationship among Green Taxes, Energy Intensity, and Energy Consumption in Nordic Countries: Dumitrescu and Hurlin Causality Approach. Energies, 15(14), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145199
5. Akram, V. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2019.1584363
6. Ao, X. (2007). Arellano-Bond Model. https://www.hbs.edu/research-computing-services/Shared Documents/Training/arellano-bond.pdf
7. Arellona, M. ve Bond, S. (1991). Some Tests Specification For Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence And An Application To Employment Equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-292.
8. Aysu, A. ve Bakırtaş, D. (2018). Kamu Harcamaları ve Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki Asimetrik Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 51, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.327607

9. Bailey, N., Kapetanios, G. ve Pesaran, M. H. (2016). Exponent of Cross-Sectional Dependence: Estimation and Inference. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31(6), 929-960. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2476
10. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q. ve Kao, C. (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence in a Fixed Effects Panel Data Model. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 164-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.04.004
11. Barro, R. J. (1974). Are Government Bonds Net Wealth? Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1095-1117.
12. Baskak, T. E. (2023). Türk Cumhuriyetlerinde Sektörel İstihdam Oranları İle Büyüme İlişkisi. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 38(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.1193779
13. Baskaya, M. M., Samour, A. ve Tursoy, T. (2022). The Financial İnclusion, Renewable Energy And Co2 Emissions Nexus in The Brıcs Nations: New Evidence From Method Of Moments Quantile Regression. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 20(3), 2577-2595. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/2003_25772595
14. Bohn, H. (1991). Budget Balance Through Revenue Or Spending Adjustments?: Some Historical Evidence for the United States. Journal of Monetary Economics, 27(3), 333-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(91)90013-E
15. Bolat, S. (2014). The Relationship between Governments Revunues and Expenditure: Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis on European Countries. The Economiic Researrch Guarrdiian, 4(2), 58-73.
16. Bozkurt, A. A. ve Çeli̇kkaya, S. (2023). Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği (AB) Ülkelerinde, Kalkınmaya Olan Etkisi. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal Ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 25(45), Article 45.
17. Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
18. Bulut, E. ve Çil, D. (2024). Kamu Harcamaları ve Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki Asimetrik Nedensellik İlişkisi: Geçiş Ekonomileri Örneği. Sosyoekonomi, 32(60), 317-338. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.02.15
19. 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 (Finance a Uver), 59(2), 165-172.
20. Chang, T. ve Ho, Y.-H. (2002). A Note on Testing “Tax-and-Spend, Spend-and-Tax or Fiscal Synchronization”: The Case of China. Journal of Economic Development, 27(1), 151-160.
21. Chudik, A. ve Pesaran, M. H. (2013). Large Panel Data Models with Cross-Sectional Dependence: A Survey (Working Paper No. 153). Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute.
22. Chudik, A., Pesaran, M. H. ve Tosetti, E. (2011). Weak and Strong Cross‐Section Dependence And Estimation of Large Panels. The Econometrics Journal, 14(1), 45-90.
23. Conley, T. G. (1999). GMM estimation with cross sectional dependence. Journal of Econometrics, 92(1), 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00084-0
24. Çakmak, E. E. ve Acar, S. (2022). The Nexus Between Economic Growth, Renewable Energy And Ecological Footprint: An Empirical Evidence From Most Oil-Producing Countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 352, 131548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131548
25. Çiçek, H. G. ve Yavuz, İ. S. (2014). Vergi-Harcama Paradoksu: Türkiye’de Belediyeler Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 23(4), 17-31.
26. Dökmen, G. (2012). Kamu Harcamaları ve Kamu Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Panel Nedensellik Analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2), 115-143.
27. Dumitrescu, E. I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
28. EU. (2024). Home—Eurostat [Resmi]. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
29. Friedman, M. (1978). The Limitations of Tax Limitation. Policy Studies: Review Annual, Summer(5), 7-14.
30. Georgescu, I., Kinnunen, J. ve Androniceanu, A.-M. (2022). Empirical Evidence On Circular Economy and Economic Development in Europe: A panel approach. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2022.16050
31. Gnangoin, Y. T. B., Du, L., Assamoi, G., Edjoukou, A. J. ve Kassi, D. F. (2019). Public Spending, Income Inequality and Economic Growth in Asian Countries: A Panel GMM Approach. Economies, 7(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies7040115
32. Gökmenoğlu, M. ve Yavuz, İ. S. (2022). Kamu Harcamaları ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Kırılgan Beşli Örneği. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.979789
33. Gujarati, D. N. ve Porter, D. C. (2014). Temel Ekonometri (2. bs). Literatür Yayıncılık.
34. Güriş, S. (2012). Panel Veri ve Panel Veri Modelleri. İçinde STATA ile Panel Veri Modelleri (1. bs, ss. 1-37). Der Yayınları.
35. Hassan, S. A. ve Nosheen, M. (2019). Estimating the Railways Kuznets Curve for High Income Nations—A GMM approach for three pollution indicators. Energy Reports, 5, 170-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.01.001
36. Hatemi-J, A. ve Shukur, G. (1999). The Causal Nexus Of Government Spending And Revenue in Finland: A Bootstrap Approach. Applied Economics Letters, 6(10), 641-644.
37. Hoover, K. D. ve 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.
38. Khan, H., Marimuthu, M. ve Lai, F.-W. (2021). A Granger Causal Analysis of Tax-Spend Hypothesis: Evidence from Malaysia. SHS Web of Conferences, 124, 04002. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202112404002
39. Khavari, D., Mirjalili, S. H., Abdorrahimian, M. ve Moghaddam, F. B. (2023). The Dynamic and Systemic Effect of Asymmetric Information on Stock Returns by Dumitrescu-Hurlin and Generalized Method of Moments (Case of Tehran Stock Exchange). International Journal of Finance and Managerial Accounting, 8(31), 131-140.
40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368400322444
41. Kollias, C. ve Paleologou, S. (2006). Fiscal Policy in the European Union: Tax and Spend, Spend And Tax, Fiscal Synchronisation Or İnstitutional Separation? Journal of Economic Studies, 33(2), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443580610666064
42. Koren, S. ve Stiassny, A. (1998). Tax and Spend, or Spend and Tax? An International Study. Journal of Policy Modeling, 20(2), 163-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-8938(96)00073-7
43. Linhares, F. ve Nojosa, G. (2020). Changes in The Tax-Spend Nexus: Evidence from selected European countries. Economics Bulletin, 40(4), 3077-3087.
44. Meltzer, A. H. ve Richard, S. F. (1981). A Rational Theory of the Size of Government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914-927.
45. Mızrak, Z. (2004). Yapay Bağımsız Değişkenli Modellerde Ortak Varyans Çözümlemesi Tüketim Fonksiyonu Örneği. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 7(1-2), 287-298.
46. Moreira, R. R. (2019). Inflation and real exchange rate and macroeconomic gaps: Causality for 50 emerging and developing countries. Economics Bulletin, 39(1), 142-158.
47. Narayan, P. K. ve Narayan, S. (2006). Government revenue and government expenditure nexus: Evidence from developing countries. Applied Economics, 38(3), 285-291.
48. Naz, A. ve Zamir, M. (2024). Tax-Spend or Spend-Tax Hypotheses: A Case Study of Pakistan using Threshold Cointegration with Asymmetric Adjustment. Journal of Economic Sciences, 3(1), 13-24.
49. Owoye, O. (1995). The Causal Relationship Between Taxes And Expenditures in the G7 countries: Cointegration and error-correction models. Applied Economics Letters, 2(1), 19-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048595357744
50. Owoye, O. ve Onafowora, O. A. (2010). The Relationship between Tax Revenues and Government Expenditures in European Union and Non-European Union OECD Countries. Public Finance Review, 39(3), 429-461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142110386211
51. Park, W. K. (1998). Granger Causality between Government Revenues and Expenditures in Korea. Journal of Economic Development, 23(1), 145-155.
52. Payne, J. E. (1997). The tax-spend debate: The case of Canada. Applied Economics Letters, 4(6), 381-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048597355357
53. Peacock, A. ve Wiseman, J. (1961). The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom. NBER.
54. Peacock, A. ve Wiseman, J. (1979). Approaches To the Analysis of Government Expenditure Growth. Public Finance Quarterly, 7(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/109114217900700101
55. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels (Working Paper No. 1229). CESifo.
56. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test İn The Presence Of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
57. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias‐Adjusted Lm Test Of Error Cross‐Section Independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
58. Rezaei, A. A. (2014). Tax-Spend, Spend-Tax or Fiscal Synchronization Hypothesis: Evidence from Iran. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 34, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.34.1
59. Richter, C. ve Dimitrios, P. (2013). Tax and Spend, Spend and Tax, Fiscal Synchronisation Or Institutional Separation? Examining the case of Greece. Romanian Journal of Fiscal Policy, 4(2), 1-17.
60. Roodman, D. (2009). How to do Xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900106
61. Samal, A. (2017). Tax and Spend, Spend and Tax or Fiscal Synchronization in India: Evidence from ARDL Bound Testing Approach. The Empirical Economics Letters, 16(8), 773-782.
62. Sarafidis, V., Yamagata, T. ve Robertson, D. (2009). A Test of Cross-Section Dependence for a Linear Dynamic Panel Model with Regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 148(2), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.10.006
63. Saunoris, J. W. ve Payne, J. E. (2010). Tax More or Spend Less? Asymmetries in the UK revenue–expenditure nexus. Journal of Policy Modeling, 32(4), 478-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.05.012
64. Tarı, R. (2014). Ekonometri (10. bs). Umuttepe Yayınları.
65. Tashevska, B. (2018). The Tax-Spend Debate-Review of the Emprical Literature. Annual of the Faculty of Economics - Skopje, 53, 467-484.
66. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00128775.2020.1724156
67. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2012). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi Stata Uygulamalı (1. bs). Beta Yayıncılık.
68. Vamvoukas, G. A. (2012). Panel data modelling and the tax-spend controversy in the euro zone. Applied Economics, 44(31), 4073-4085. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.587777
69. Yılancı, V., Şaşmaz, M. Ü. ve Öztürk, Ö. F. (2020). Türkiye’de Kamu Harcamaları ile Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişki: Frekans Alanda Asimetrik Testinden Kanıtlar. Sayıştay Dergisi, 31(116), 121-139.
70. Yurdakul, F. (2000). Yapısal Kırılmaların Varlığı Durumunda Geliştirilen Birim Kök Testleri. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 21-34.
71. Yüksel, S. ve Adalı, Z. (2017). Causality Relationship Between Foreign Driect Investment and Economic Improvement fır Developing Economies. Marmara Journal of Economics, 1(2), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.24954/mjecon.2017.6