ANALYSIS OF TAX REVENUES AND ECONOMIC GROWTH RELATIONSHIP THROUGH PANEL DATA METHOD: EVIDENCE FROM OECD COUNTRIES

Öz

Tax is the most important source of income for governments in the historical process and recently. Such an important source of income naturally creates significant effects on society and economy. Therefore, it is important that the tax policies implemented by the governments coincide with the conditions and requirements of the country. Otherwise, social unrest and economic problems are inevitable.
The study discusses how tax revenues affect economic growth. There are quite a few studies in the literature on the impact of tax revenues on economic growth. However, the results of these studies may vary in the context of the countries, empirical method and the period analyzed.
The purpose of the study, 24 OECD countries (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, USA) is to analyze the relationship between tax revenues and economic growth. The reason why 24 countries were chosen among OECD countries stems from the limited data on variables. Since the tax revenues and economic growth variables used in the analysis are nominal, they are realized with the deflator and their natural logarithms are used. Economic growth used as a dependent variable and tax revenues are used as explanatory variable. The data covers the period 1980-2018. In the study, panel cointegration method is used in accordance with the literature. In order to determine the correct panel cointegration method, first, cross section dependency and homogeneity properties were examined.The methods developed by Swamy (1970) is used for test the homogeneity and Pesaran (2004) is used for test the cross-section dependency test.
The results reveal that the panel model includes cross-sectional dependency and is heterogeneous. The findings show that the second generation panel methods are the methods that best describe the data set. After this stage, the second generation panel unit root test first developed by Pesaran (2007) was used. According to the findings, all variables from the panel point of view contain unit root at the level for the constant model and become stationary when the first difference is taken. On a cross-section basis, it contains unit root at the level of variables in most of the countries and when the first difference is taken, it becomes stationary. After the panel unit root test, the second generation panel cointegration test developed by Westerlund (2007) is performed to analyze the long-term relationship between variables. The results provide evidence that there is a cointegration relationship between tax revenues and economic growth at the %1 significance level. After determining the cointegration relationship, the DOLSMG estimator developed by Pedroni (2001) is applied in order to estimate the coefficient among variables. According to the test results, %1 change in tax revenues in the panel model increases the economic growth by %1.117. According to the findings obtained on a cross-section basis, the estimator coefficients are significant in all countries except Sweden. In addition, tax revenues have a positive effect on economic growth in all countries except Greece. The Netherlands is the country with the highest positive impact of tax revenues on economic growth with a coefficient of %2,363. Other countries with a coefficient above %2 are Germany and Belgium; those between %2 and %1 in Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States; Those below %1 are listed as Finland, Italy, Korea, Spain and Switzerland.
According to the result of the study, tax revenues and economic growth variables move together in the long run. In addition, tax revenues positively affect economic growth in terms of coefficient. However, the fact that the coefficients are generally below %3 indicates that tax policies are not used at an optimal level. Governments should consider both the welfare of their citizens and economic growth when formulating their tax policies. In order to make more detailed determinations on country basis, it is recommended to examine the composition of tax revenues of the relevant country under separate headings in future studies. 

VERGİ GELİRLERİ VE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME İLİŞKİSİNİN PANEL VERİ YÖNTEMİYLE ANALİZİ: OECD ÜLKELERİNDEN KANITLAR

Öz

Çalışmada, 24 OECD ülkesinde vergi gelirleri ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki 1980-2018 dönemi için analiz edilmektedir. Ampirik analizde, literatüre uygun olarak Westerlund (2007) tarafından önerilen panel eşbütünleşme yönteminden yararlanılmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, vergi gelirleri ile ekonomik büyüme arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisi bulunmaktadır. Sonrasında Pedroni (2001) tarafından önerilen DOLSMG panel eşbütünleşme tahmincisi kullanılarak elde edilen katsayıya göre, vergi gelirlerinin ekonomik büyüme üzerinde pozitif etkisi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Kesit bazında sonuçlar değerlendirildiğinde, İsveç dışında tüm ülkelerin katsayıları istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır. Bu ülkelerin içinde ise sadece Yunanistan’ın katsayısı negatiftir. Özetle, analiz edilen ülkelerin önemli kısmında, vergi yapısı ekonomik büyümeyi olumlu yönde teşvik etmektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Vergi
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• OECD
• Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Cagé, J. ve Kerr, W. R. (2016). “Taxation, Corruption, and Growth”, European Economic Review, 86, 24-51.
2. Alizadeh, M. ve Motallabi, M. (2016). “Studying The Effect of Value Added Tax on The Size of Current Government and Costruction Government”, Procedia Economics and Finance, 36, 336-344.
3. Arnold, J. (2008). “Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries”, Economics Department Working Papers, 643, OECD.
4. Babatunde, O. A., Ibukun, A. O. ve Oyeyemi, O. G. (2017). “Taxation Revenue and Economic Growth in Africa”, Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 9(2), 11-22.
5. Banerjee, A., Dolado, J. ve Mestre, R. (1998). “Error‐Correction Mechanism Tests for Cointegration in A Single‐Equation Framework”, Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(3), 267-283.
6. Barro, R. J. (1990). “Government Spending in A Simple Model of Endogenous Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 103-125.
7. 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.
8. Bulut, Ş. (2018). “Vergi Gelirleri ile Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: OECD Ülkeleri İçin Panel Veri Analizi”, Yerelden Globale Stratejik Araştırmalar I, 78, IJOPEC Publication Limited.

9. Chang, Y. (2004). “Bootstrap Unit Root Tests in Panels With Cross-Sectional Dependency”, Journal of Econometrics, 120, 263-293.
10. Chudik, A. ve Pesaran, M. H. (2013). “Common Correlated Effects Estimation of Heterogeneous Dynamic Panel Data Models with Weakly Exogenous Regressors”, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute, Working Paper No. 146, 61.
11. Demir, M. ve Sever, E. (2017). “Vergi Gelirleri Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: OECD Ülkelerine İlişkin Panel Veri Analizi”, Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 51-66.
12. Demircan, E. S. (2003). “Vergilendirmenin Ekonomik Büyüme ve Kalkınmaya Etkisi”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 97-116.
13. Furceri, D. ve Karras, G. (2008). “Tax changes and economic growth: Empirical evidence for a panel of OECD countries”, University of Illinois, 1, 1-29.
14. Gemmell, N. (1988). “Tax Systems, Tax Revenue and Growth in LDCs: A Review of Empirical Evidance”, Intereconomics, 23(2), 84-90.
15. Kibritçioğlu, A. (1998). “İktisadi Büyümenin Belirleyicileri ve Yeni Büyüme Modellerinde Beşerî Sermayenin Yeri”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 53(1), 207-230.
16. Kneller, R., Bleaney, M. F., ve Gemmell, N. (1999). “Fiscal Policy and Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries”, Journal of Public Economics, 74(2), 171-190.
17. Newey, W. K., ve West, K. D. (1994). Automatic Lag Selection in Covariance Matrix Estimation”, The Review of Economic Studies, 61(4), 631-653.
18. Pedroni, P. (2001). “Purchasing Power Parity Tests in Cointegrated Panels”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(4), 727-731.
19. Pesaran, H, M. (2004). “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, Working Paper, No: 0435, University of Cambridge.
20. Pesaran, M.H. (2007). “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of Cross-Section Dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
21. Pesaran, H.M. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). “Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93.
22. Razin, A., Sadka, E. ve Swagel, P. (2002). “Tax Burden and Migration: A Political Economy Theory and Evidence”, Journal of Public Economics, 85(2), 167-190.
23. Sandalcı, U. ve Sandalcı, İ. (2017). “OECD Ülkelerinde Ekonomik Büyüme ve Vergi Gelirleri Arasındaki İlişkinin Ampirik Analizi: 1990–2014”, Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 51-62.
24. Saraç, T. B. (2015). “Vergi Yükü ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği”, Maliye Dergisi, 169, 21-35.
25. Shiller, R. J. ve Perron, P. (1985). “Testing the Random Walk Hypothesis: Power Versus Frequency of Observation”, NBER Techical Paper Series, Working Paper No:45.
26. Songur, M. ve Yüksel, C. (2018). “Vergi Yapısı ile Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği”, Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 643, 47-70.
27. Swamy, S. (1970). “Efficient Inference in A Random Coefficient Regression Model”, Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323.
28. Topal, M. H. (2017). “Vergi Yapısının Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: OECD Ülkelerinden Ampirik Bir Kanıt”, Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 183-206.
29. Tosun, M. S., ve Abizadeh, S. (2005). “Economic Growth and Tax Components: An Analysis of Tax Changes in OECD”, Applied Economics, 37(19), 2251-2263.
30. Ünsal, M. E. (2020). “Kamu Harcamaları, Kamu Gelirleri ve Kamu Borçlarının Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkileri: OECD Ülkeleri Üzerine Panel Veri Analizi”, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of Social Sciences, (64), 53-64.
31. Westerlund, J. (2007). “Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748.
32. Widmalm, F. (2001). “Tax Structure and Growth: Are Some Taxes Better Than Others?”, Public Choice, 107(3-4), 199-219.
33. Zipfel, F. (2012). “The Impact of Tax Systems on Economic Growth in Europe”, Deutsche Bank Research, 1-12.