Analyzing Public Spending and Income Links in CIVETS

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3, 419 - 435, 11.10.2025

Yunus Savaş

https://doi.org/10.54733/smar.1685853

Öz

A substantial body of research has emerged within the economic discourse surrounding the intricacies of public expenditure and its relationship with national income. Researchers have dedicated significant effort to investigating the nature of this interdependence. This study endeavors to make a meaningful contribution to the extant body of research by assessing the validity of two prominent perspectives—those of Wagner and Keynes—within the context of the CIVETS countries (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, and South Africa) for the time period of 1995-2023, for both absolute and relative versions. The Westerlund cointegration test and Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test with a bootstrap approach were utilized to examine the dynamic interactions between public spending and national income. The findings indicate that, in its absolute form, Wagner's Law is supported; however, no significant relationship is observed in the case of the Keynesian perspective. The findings indicate that the influence operates from national income to public expenditure, rather than the reverse, in the case of CIVETS countries. This finding contributes to the ongoing discussion regarding the directionality of causality between public spending and national income, emphasizing the relevance of Wagner's Law in the context of emerging market economies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

public spending , national income , wagner law , panel causality

CIVETS Ülkelerinde Kamu Harcamaları ve Gelir İlişkilerinin Analizi

Öz

Ekonomik söylem içerisinde kamu harcamalarının incelikleri ve milli gelirle olan ilişkisi üzerine önemli bir araştırma grubu ortaya çıkmıştır. Araştırmacılar bu karşılıklı bağımlılığın doğasını araştırmak için önemli çaba sarf etmişlerdir. Bu çalışma, 1995-2023 dönemi için CIVETS ülkeleri (Kolombiya, Endonezya, Vietnam, Mısır, Türkiye ve Güney Afrika) bağlamında Wagner ve Keynes'in iki önemli perspektifinin geçerliliğini hem mutlak hem de göreli versiyonlar için değerlendirerek mevcut araştırma bütününe anlamlı bir katkıda bulunmaya çalışmaktadır. Kamu harcamaları ve milli gelir arasındaki dinamik etkileşimleri incelemek için Westerlund eşbütünleşme testi ve bootstrap yaklaşımıyla Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel nedensellik testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, mutlak haliyle Wagner Yasası'nın desteklendiğini, ancak Keynesyen perspektif söz konusu olduğunda anlamlı bir ilişki gözlenmediğini göstermektedir. Bulgular, CIVETS ülkeleri söz konusu olduğunda, etkinin milli gelirden kamu harcamalarına doğru değil, tersine işlediğini göstermektedir. Bu bulgu, kamu harcamaları ile milli gelir arasındaki nedenselliğin yönüne ilişkin süregelen tartışmaya katkıda bulunmakta ve Wagner Yasası'nın yükselen piyasa ekonomileri bağlamındaki önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

kamu harcamaları , milli gelir , wagner yasası , panel nedensellik

Kaynakça

• Akbulut, N., & Başoğlu, A. (2023). Wagner kanunu ve Keynesyen hipotez kapsamında Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 40, 131-148. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1262717
• Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q., & Kao, C. (2012). A lagrange multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model (Center for Policy Research Working Paper No. 137). Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. https://surface.syr.edu/cpr/193 (Accessed Date: 30 January 2025).
• Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 407-444. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937943
• Bose, N., Haque, M. E., & Osborn, D. R. (2007). Public expenditure and economic growth: A disaggregated analysis for developing countries. The Manchester School, 75(5), 533-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.2007.01028.x
• Breusch, T. S., & 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
• Demirbas, S. (1999). Cointegration analysis—Causality testing and Wagner’s law: The case of Turkey, 1950–2000 (Discussion Paper No. 99/3). University of Leicester, Department of Economics.
• Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
• Dumitrescu, E. I., & 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
• Ghazy, N. H., Ghoneim, H., & Paparas, D. (2021). The validity of Wagner’s law in Egypt from 1960-2018. Review of Economics and Political Science, 6(2), 98-117. https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-01-2020-0004
• Goffman, I. J. (1968). On the empirical testing of Wagner’s law: A technical note. Public Finance, 23(3), 359-364.
• Grier, K. B., & Tullock, G. (1989). An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth, 1951-1980. Journal of Monetary Economics, 24(2), 259-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(89)90006-8
• Gupta, S. P. (1967). Public expenditure and economic growth: A time series analysis. Public Finance, 22(4), 423-461.
• Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
• Iniguez-Montiel, A. J. (2010). Government expenditure and national income in Mexico: Keynes versus Wagner. Applied Economics Letters, 17(9), 887-893. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850802599433
• Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of interest, employment and money. Macmillan.
• Lahirushan, K. P. K. S., & Gunasekara, W. G. V. (2015). The impact of government expenditure on economic growth: A study of Asian Countries. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Open Science Index 105, International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(9), 3152-3160.
• Lamartina, S., & Zaghini, A. (2011). Increasing public expenditure: Wagner’s law in OECD countries. German Economic Review, 12(2), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0475.2010.00517.x
• Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
• Lupu, D., Petrisor, M. B., Bercu, A., & Tofan, M. (2018). The impact of public expenditures on economic growth: A case study of Central and Eastern European countries. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 54(3), 552-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2017.1419127
• Magazzino, C. (2012). Wagner versus Keynes: Public spending and national income in Italy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 34(6), 890-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2012.05.012
• Mann, A. J. (1980). Wagner's law: An econometric test for Mexico, 1925-1976. National Tax Journal, 33(2), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1086/NTJ41862301
• Musgrave, R. A. (1969). Fiscal systems. Yale University Press.
• Odhiambo, N. M. (2015). Government expenditure and economic growth in South Africa: An empirical investigation. Atlantic Economic Journal, 43, 393-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-015-9466-2
• Onifade, S. T., Çevik, S., Erdoğan, S., Asongu, S., & Bekun, F. V. (2020). An empirical retrospect of the impacts of government expenditures on economic growth: New evidence from the Nigerian economy. Journal of Economic Structures, 9, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-020-0186-7
• Peacock, A. T., & Scott, A. (2000). The curious attraction of Wagner’s law. Public Choice, 102, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005032817804
• Peacock, A. T., & Wiseman, J. (1961). The growth of public expenditure in the United Kingdom (NBER General Series No. 72). Princeton University Press.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
• Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60, 13-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
• Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
• Pryor, F. L. (1968). Public expenditures in communist and capitalist nations. George Allen and Unwin.
• Tan, E. C. (2003). Does Wagner's law or the Keynesian paradigm hold in the case of Malaysia?. Thammasat Review, 8(1), 62-75.
• Verma, S., & Arora, R. (2010). Does the Indian economy support Wagner's law? An econometric analysis. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 3(5), 77-91.
• Wagner, A. (1958). Three extracts on public finance. In A. R. Musgrave, & A. T. Peacock (Eds.), Classics in the theory of public finance (pp. 1-27). Macmillan
• Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x