WAGNER VE KEYNES HİPOTEZİNİN GEÇERLİLİĞİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Kamu harcamaları ile milli gelir arasındaki ilişki ekonomi literatüründe çeşitli teoriler ve bakış açıları çerçevesinde uzun yıllardır tartışma konusu olmuştur. Bu çalışmada, söz konusu ilişki Türkiye ekonomisi için Keynes ve Wagner’in ortaya koyduğu teoriler çerçevesinde analiz edilmiştir. Söz konusu ilişkinin belirlenebilmesi ve hangi teorinin geçerli olduğunun tespit edilebilmesi için Granger nedensellik testi ve Vektör otoregresyon (VAR) modeli kullanılmıştır. 1998-2018 yıllık verileri kullanılarak yapılan çalışmada değişkenler arasında herhangi bir nedensellik ilişkisi olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Diğer yandan, kurulan VAR modelinde etki-tepki analizine göre kamu harcamalarında ortaya çıkan şokların yaklaşık beş dönem boyunca GSYİH üzerinde etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca varyans ayrıştırması sonuçlarına göre GSYİH’nın açıklanmasında kamu harcamalarının önemli bir faktör olduğu görülmektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, Türkiye ekonomisi için Keynesyen hipotezin geçerli olduğu sonucunu ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu Harcaması
• Gayrisafi Yurtiçi Hasıla
• Ekonomik Büyüme

VALIDITY OF WAGNER AND KEYNES HYPOTHESIS: THE CASE OF TURKEY

Öz

The relationship between public spending and national income has been the subject of research for many years in the economic literature within the framework of various theories and perspectives. In the study, this relationship is analyzed within the framework of Keynes and Wagner’s theories for the Turkish economy. Granger causality test and Vector autoregression (VAR) model are used to determine this relationship and the current theory. In the study in which 1998-2018 period data is used, it is concluded that there is no causal relationship between the variables. On the other hand, according to the impact-response analysis in the established VAR model, shocks in public expenditures are determined to have an impact on GDP for approximately five periods. In addition, according to the results of variance decomposition, it is seen that public expenditures are an important factor in explaining GDP. The findings reveal that the Keynesian hypothesis is valid for the Turkish economy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Expenditure
• Gross Domestic Product
• Economic Growth

Kaynakça

1. Abdiyeva, R. ve Çetintaş, H. (2017). Kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: Kırgızistan örneği. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 19-33.
2. Abdullah, H. ve Maamor, S. (2009). Relationship between national product and Malaysian Government development expenditure: Wagner’s law validity application. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(1), 88-97.
3. Abizadeh, S. ve Yousefi, M. (1998). An Empirical analysis of South Korea’s economic development and public expenditures growth. Journal of Socio-economics, 27(6), 687-701.
4. Abu-Bader, S. ve Abu-Qarn, A.S. (2003). Government expenditures, military spending and economic growth: causality evidence from Egypt, Israel, and Syria. Journal of Policy Modelling, 25(6), 567-583.
5. Afonso, A. ve Fuceri, D. (2010). Government size, composition, volatility and economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 26, 517-532.
6. Afxentiou, P.C. ve Serletis, A. (1996). Government expenditures in the European Union: do they converge or follow Wagner's Law?. International Economic Journal, 10(3), 33-47.
7. Ağayev, S. (2012). Kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Eski Sovyetler Birliği ülkelerinde Wagner Yasası analizi (1995-2009). Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 7(2), 7-27.
8. Ahsan, S.M., Kwan, A. C. C. ve Sahni. B. S. (1996). Cointegration and Wagner's hypothesis: time series evidence for Canada. Applied Economics, 28(8), 1055-1058.

9. Akbulut, H. (2017). Ekonomik Gelişmişlik-Kamu Harcamaları İlişkisi: 2007:1-2015:3 Dönemi Türkiye Örneği. Journal of Administrative Sciences, 15(29), 9-23.
10. Al-Faris, A. F. (2002). Public expenditure and economic growth in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Applied Economics, 34, 1187-1193.
11. Altay, A. (2015). Kamu maliyesi: Teorisi, gelişimi ve kapsamı. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
12. Altunç, Ö. F. (2011). Kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye’ye ilişkin ampirik kanıtlar, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 18(2), 144-157.
13. Ansari, M. I., Gordon, D. V. ve Akuamoah, C. (1997). Keynes versus Wagner: Public expenditure and national income for three African countries. Applied Economics, 29(4), 543-550.
14. Antonis, A., Constantinos, K. ve Persefoni, T. (2013). Wagner’s Law versus Keynesian Hypothesis: Evidence from pre WWII Greece, Panoeconomicus, 60(4), 457-472.
15. Ashworth, J. (1994). Spurious in Mexico: A comment on Wagner’s law. Public Finance, 49, 282-286.
16. Azgun, S. (2010). Government expenditure and national income: Causality tests for Turkish Economy. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 6(11), 1674-1679.
17. Babatunde, M. A. (2011). A bound testing analysis of Wagner’s Law in Nigeria: 1970–2006. Applied Economics, 21, 2843-2850.
18. Bağdigen, M. ve Çetintaş, H. (2003). Causality between public expenditure and economic growth: The Turkish case. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 6(1), 53-72.
19. Balamurali, N. ve Sivarajasingam, S. (2010). Empirical investigation of the dynamic relationship between government expenditure and economic growth in Sri Lanka. Journal of Management, 5(1), 49-59.
20. Barra, C., Bimonte, G. ve Spennati. P. (2015). Did fiscal institutions affect Wagner’s law in Italy during 1951–2009 period? An empirical analysis. Applied Economics, 47(59), 6409-6424.
21. Bayrakdar, S., Demez, S. ve Yapar, M. (2015). Testing the validity of Wagner’s Law: 1998-2004, the case of Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 493-500.
22. Bayraktar, N. ve Dodson, B. M. (2012). How can public spending help you grow? An empirical analysis for developing countries. Bulletin of Economic Research, 67(1), 30–64.
23. Bird, R. M. (1971). Wagner’s ‘Law’ of expanding state activity. Public Finance/Finances Publique, 26(1), 1-26.
24. Brückner, M., Chong, A. ve Gradstein, M. (2012). Estimating the permanent income elasticity of government expenditure: Evidence on Wagner’s law based on oil price shocks. Journal of Public Economics, 96(11), 1025-1035.
25. Cergibozan, R., Çevik, E. ve Demir, C. (2017). Wagner Kanunu’nun Türkiye Ekonomisi için sınanması: çeşitli zaman serisi bulguları. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 54(625), 75-89.
26. Chang, T. (2002). An econometric test of Wagner’s Law for six countries based on cointegration and error-correction modelling techniques. Applied Economics, 34(9), 1157-1169.
27. Chletsos, M. ve Kollias. C. (1997). Testing Wagner's law using disaggregated public expenditure data in the case of Greece: 1958-93. Applied Economics, 29(3), 371-377.
28. Chow, Y. F., Cotsomitis, J. A. ve Kwan, A. C. C. (2002). Multivariate cointegration and causality tests of Wagner's hypothesis: Evidence from the UK. Applied Economics, 34(13), 1671-1677.
29. Courakis, A. S., Moura-Roque, F. ve Tridimas, G. (1993). Public expenditure growth in Greece and Portugal: Wagner’s Law and beyond. Applied Economics, 25(1), 125-134.
30. Creedy, J., Li, M. ve Moslehi, S. (2011). The composition of government expenditure: Economic conditions and preferences. Economic Inquiry, 49, 94–107.
31. Çolak, Ö. F. ve Öztürkler, H. (2012). Tasarrufun belirleyicileri: küresel tasarruf eğiliminde değişim ve Türkiye’de hanehalkı tasarruf eğiliminin analizi. Bankacılar Dergisi, 82, 3-44.
32. Dada, M. A. ve Adewale. O. A. (2013). Is Wagner’s Law a myth or a reality? Empirical evidence from Nigeria. International Journal of Development and Economic Sustainability, 1(1), 123-137.
33. Davidson, R. ve Mackinnon. J. (1993). Estimation and ınference in econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.
34. Demirbaş, S. (1999). Cointegration analysis-causality testing and Wagner's Law: the case of Turkey, 1950-1990. University of Leicester Discussion Papers in Economics, 99(2).
35. Devrim, F. (2002). Kamu maliyesine giriş. İzmir: İlkem Ofset.
36. Dogan, E. ve Tang, T.C. (2006). Government expenditure and national ıncome: causality tests for five South East Asian Countries. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 5(10), 49-58.
37. Dritsakis, N. ve Adamopoulos, A. (2004). A causal relationship between government spending and economic development: An empirical examination of the Greek economy. Applied Economics, 36(5), 457-464.
38. Durevall, D. ve Henrekson, M. (2011). The futile quest for a grand explanation of long-run government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 708-722.
39. Funashima, Y. (2017). Wagner’s law versus displacement effect. Applied Economics, 49(7), 619-634.
40. Gacener, A. (2005). Türkiye açısından Wagner Kanunu’nun geçerliliğinin analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(1), 103-122.
41. Ghafoor, A. (2004). True or false: Emprical evidence on wagner’s law from Cyprus. Selçuk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8, 58-78.
42. Goffman, I. J. (1968). Empirical testing of Wagner’s Law- technical note. Public Finance (Finances Publiques), 23(3), 359-366.
43. Goffman, I. J. ve Mahar, D. J. (1971). The Growth of Public Expenditures in Selected Developing Nations: Six Caribbean Countries 1940-1965, Public Finance (Finances Publiques), 26(1), 57-74.
44. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438.
45. Gujarati, D. (2011). Econometrics by example. PaIgrave MacmiIan.
46. Gupta, S. P. (1967). Public expenditure and economic growth: A time-series analysis. Public Finance (Finances Publiques), 22(4), 423-454.
47. Gül, E. ve Yavuz, H. (2011). Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi: 1963-2008 dönemi. Maliye Dergisi, 160, 72-85.
48. Gyles, A. F. (1991), A Time domain transfer function model of wagner’s law: The case of the United Kingdom economy. Applied Economics, 23(2), 327-330.
49. Halıcıoğlu, F. (2003). Testing Wagner's law for Turkey. Review of Middle East Economics and Finance, 1(2), 129-140.
50. Hendry, D. F. ve Jusellius, J. (2000). Explaining cointegration analysis: Part I. Energy Journal, 21(1), 1-41.
51. Henrekson, M. (1993). Wagner's Law-a spurıous relationship. Public Finance/Finances Publique, 48(2), 406-415.
52. Huang, C. (2006). Government expenditures in China and Taiwan: Do they follow Wagner's law. Journal of Economic Development, 31(2), 139-148.
53. Iniguez-Montiel, A. J. (2010). Government expenditure and national income in Mexico: Keynes versus Wagner. Applied Economics Letters, 17(9), 887-893.
54. Islam, A. M. (2001). Wagner's law revisited: Cointegration and exogeneity tests for the USA. Applied Economics, 8(8), 509-515.
55. Iyare, S. O. ve Lorde, T. (2004). Co-integration, causality and Wagner's law: Tests for selected Caribbean countries. Applied Economics Letters, 11(13), 815-825.
56. Jobarteh, M. (2017). Testing Wagner's Law for the Gambia, 1977-2013. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 76303. Germany: University Library of Munich.
57. Kabaklarlı, E. ve Er, P. H. (2014). Türkiye’de kamu harcamalarının ekonomik büyümeye etkisinin sınır testi yaklaşımı ile analizi. Maliye Dergisi, 166, 268-285.
58. Kalam, M. A. ve Aziz, N. (2009). Growth of government expenditure in Bangladesh: An Empirical enquiry into the validity of Wagner's law. Global Economy Journal, 9(2), 1-20.
59. Karagianni, S., Pempetzoglou, M. ve Strikou. S. (2011). Testing Wagner’s Law for the European Union economies. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 18(4), 107-114.
60. Karakayalı, H. (2005). Makro ekonomi. Manisa: Emek Matbaası.
61. Kearney, C. ve Monadjemi, M. (1990). Fiscal policy and current ac-count: international evidence on the twin deficit, Journal of Macroeconomics, 12(2), 197-217.
62. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, ınterest, and Money. London: Macmillan & Co.
63. Korkmaz, S. (2013). Evaluating the relationship between public expenditures and economic growth for Turkey. Actual Problems of Economics, 149(11), 382-391.
64. Kuckuck, J. (2012). Testing Wagner's law at different stages of economic . development: A historical analysis of five Western European countries. Institute of Empirical Economic Research Working Paper, No. 91. Germany: University of Osnabrück.
65. Kumar, S. (2009). Further evidence on public spending and economic growth in East Asian countries. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 19298. Germany: University Library of Munich.
66. Kumar, S., Webber, D. J. ve Fargher, S. (2012). Wagner's Law revisited: cointegration and causality tests for New Zealand. Applied Economics, 44(5), 607-616.
67. Küçükkale, Y. ve Yamak, R. (2012). Cointegration, causality and Wagner’s Law with disaggregated data: Evidence from Turkey, 1968-2004. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Paper, No. 36894. Germany: University Library of Munich.
68. Lamartina, S. ve Zaghini, A. (2011). Increasing public expenditure: Wagner’s law in OECD countries. German Economic Review, 12(2), 149-164.
69. Legrenzi, G. ve Milas, C. (2002). A multivariate approach to the growth of governments. Public Finance Review, 30(1), 56-76.
70. Lin, C. (1998), Structural Wagner’s Law and institutional dynamics: an evolutionary perspective. Public Finance/Finances Publiques, 53(2), 175-194.
71. Lopez, R. ve Miller, S. (2007). The structure of public expenditure: A robust predictor of economic development. University of Maryland at College Park Working Paper.
72. Magazzino, C. (2011). Disaggregated public spending, GDP and money supply: Evidence for Italy. European Journal of Economics Finance and Administrative Sciences, 41, 118–31.
73. Magazzino, C. (2014). Government Size and Economic Growth in Italy: An empirical analyses based on new data (1861-2008). International Journal of Empirical Finance, 3(2), 38-54.
74. Magazzino, C., Giolli, L. ve Mele. M. (2015). Wagner’s Law and Peacock and Wiseman’s displacement effect in European Union countries: A panel data study. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(3), 812-819.
75. Mann, A. J. (1980). Wagner's law: An econometric test for Mexico, 1925-1976. National Tax Journal, 33(2), 189-201.
76. Martins, S. ve Veiga. F.J. (2014). Government size, composition of public expenditure, and economic development. International Tax and Public Finance, 21(4), 578–597.
77. Mehta, D. (2016). Government expendıture and natıonal ıncome of India: An empirical investigation based on Wagnerıan and Keynesıan dilemma. Nirma International Conference in Management, Ahmedabad.
78. Menyah, K. ve Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2012). Wagner’s Law revisited: A note from South Africa. South African Journal of Economics, 80(2), 200-208.
79. Miyakoshi, T., Kono, T. ve Terasawa. K. (2010). Optimal adjustment of the composition of public expenditure in developing countries. Pacific Economic Review, 15(5), 577–595.
80. Mohammadi, H., Çak, M. ve Çak. D. (2008). Wagner’s hypothesis New evidence from Turkey using the bounds testing approach. Journal of Economic Studies, 35(1), 94-106.
81. Moore, S. (2016). Wagner in Ireland: An econometric analysis. The Economic and Social Review, 47(1), 69-103.
82. Murthy, N. R. V. (1993). Further evidence of Wagner’s Law for Mexico: An application of cointegration analysis. Public Finance/Finances Publiques, 48(1), 92-96.
83. Musgrave, R. A. (1969). Theories of fiscal federalism. Public Finance (Finances Publiques), 24(4), 521-536.
84. Narayan, P. K., Nielsen, I. ve Smyth, R. (2008). Panel data, cointegration, causality and Wagner's law: Empirical evidence from Chinese provinces. China Economic Review, 19, 297-307.
85. Oktayer, A. ve Oktayer, N. (2013). Testing Wagner's Law for Turkey: Evidence from a trivariate causality analysis. Prague Economic Papers, 2: 284-301.
86. Oladele, M. F., Mah, G. ve Mongale, I. (2017). The role of government spending on economic growth in a developing country. Risk Governance & Control: Financial Markets & İnstitutions, 7(2), 140-146.
87. Olugbenga, A. O. ve Owoye, O. (2007). Public expenditure and economic growth: new evidence from OECD countries. Erişim adresi: http://iaes.confex.com/iaes /Rome_67/techprogram/S1888.HTM, (10 Ocak 2020).
88. Ono, H. (2014). The government expenditure–economic growth relation in Japan: An analysis by using the ADL test for threshold cointegration. Applied Economics, 46(28), 3523-3531.
89. Oxley, L. (1994). Cointegration, causality and Wagner’s law: A test for Britain 1870–1913. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 41(3), 286-298.
90. Özgen, F. B. ve Güloğlu, B. (2004). Türkiye’de iç borçların iktisadi etkilerinin VAR tekniği ile analizi. Metu Studies in Development, 31(1), 93-114.
91. Pahlavani, M., Abed, D. ve Pourshabi, F. (2011). Investigating the Keynesian view and Wagner's Law on the size of government and economic growth ın Iran. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(13), 170-175.
92. Paparas, D. ve Stoian, A. (2016). The validity of Wagner's Law in Romania during 1995-2015. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 74378. Germany: University Library of Munich.
93. Paternostro, S., Rajaram, A. ve Tiongson, E. R. (2007). How does the composition of public spending matter. Oxford Development Studies, 35(1), 47-82.
94. Peacock, A. ve Wiseman, J. (1961). The growth of public expenditure in the United Kingdom, London: Oxford University Press.
95. Peacock, A. ve Wiseman, J. (1967). The growth of public expenditure in the United Kingdom, London: George Allen & Unwix Ltd.
96. Pevcin, P. (2004). Economic output and the optimal size of government. Economic and Business Review, 6(3), 213-227.
97. Pınar, A. (2006). Maliye politikası. Ankara: Natürel Yayınları.
98. Peters, A.C. (2002). An application of Wagner’s ‘Law’ of expanding state activity to totally diverse countries. Monetary Policy Unit, Eastern Caribbean Central Bank.
99. Priesmeier, C. ve Koester, G. B. (2012). Does Wagner’s law ruin the sustainability of german public finances?, Deutsche Bundesbank Discussion Papers, No. 08/2012. Germany.
100. Pryor, F. L. (1968). Public expenditures in communist and capitalist nations, London: George Allen and Unvin Ltd.
101. Ram, R. (1986). Government size and economic growth: A new framework and some evidence from cross-section and time-series data, The American Economic Review, 76(1), 191-203.
102. Rehman, J. (2010). Cointegration-causality analysis between public expenditure and economic growth in Pakistan. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 556-565.
103. Richter, C. ve Dimitrios, P. (2012). The validity of Wagner’s Law in the United Kingdom for the period 1850-2010. Working Paper. International Network for Economic Research, Bonn, Germany.
104. Sağdıç E. N., Şaşmaz M. Ü. ve Tuncer, G. (2019). Wagner versus Keynes: Empirical Evidence from Turkey’s Provinces. Panoeconomicus, Advance online publication, 1-18.
105. Samudram, M., Nair, M. ve Vaithilingam, S. (2009). Keynes and Wagner on government expenditures and economic development: The case of a developing economy. Empirical Economics, 39, 697-712.
106. Sanchez-Juarez, I., Almada, R. M. G. ve Bustillos, H. B. (2016). The relationship between total production and public spending in Mexico: Keynes versus Wagner. International Journal of Financial Research, 7(1), 109-120.
107. Shah, A. (2005). Public expenditure analysis. Washington DC: World Bank.
108. Shelton, C. A. (2007). The size and composition of government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 91(11), 2230-2260.
109. Sideris, D. (2007). Wagner’s Law in 19th Century Greece: A cointegration and causality analysis. Bank of Greece Working Papers. No. 64.
110. Simoes, M. C. N. (2011). Education composition and growth: A pooled mean group analysis of OECD countries. Panoeconomicus, 4, 455-471.
111. Sims, C. A. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica, 8(1), 1-48.
112. Singh, R. ve Weber, R. (1997). The composition of public expenditure and economic growth: Can anything be learned from Swiss data. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 133(3), 617-634.
113. Sönmez, S. (1989). Kamu ekonomisi teorisi kamu harcamalarında etkinlik arayışı. Ankara: Teori Yayınları.
114. Şanlısoy, S. ve Sunal, O. (2016). Kamu harcamaları-ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 7(17), 102-122.
115. Tarı, Recep. (2002). Ekonometri. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
116. Thornton, J. (1999). Cointegration, causality and Wagner's Law in 19th century Europe. Applied Economics Letters, 6(7), 413-416.
117. Taşseven, Ö. (2011). The Wagner's Law: time series evidence for Turkey, 1960-2006. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 12(2), 304-316.
118. Tuna, K. (2013). Türkiye’de Wagner Kanunu’nun geçerliliğinin test edilmesi. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 1(3), 54-57.
119. Ulucak, R. ve Ulucak, Z. S. (2014). Kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki nedensellik: Türkiye örneği, Int. Journal of Management Economics and Business, 10(23), 81-97.
120. Uzuner, G., Bekun, F. V. ve Akadiri, S. S. (2017). Public expenditures and economic growth: was Wagner right? evidence from Turkey. Academic Journal of Economic Studies, 3(2), 36-40.
121. Wagner, A. (1978). Briefe - Dokumente - Augenzeugenberichte, 1851–1917. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
122. Yay, T. ve Taştan, H. (2009). Growth of public expenditures in Turkey during the 1950–2004 period: An econometric analysis. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 4, 101-118.
123. Yıldız, F. ve Sarısoy, S. (2012). OECD Ülkelerinde kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi üzerine ampirik bir çalışma. Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 33(2), 517-540.
124. Yüksel, C. ve Songur, M. (2011). Kamu harcamalarının bileşenleri ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: Ampirik bir analiz (1980-2010). Maliye Dergisi, 161, 365-380.
125. Zengin, A. (2000). Reel döviz kuru hareketleri ve dış ticaret fiyatları (Türkiye ekonomisi üzerine ampirik bulgular). Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü İstatistik Araştırma Sempozyumu, Ankara.