Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Determinants of Smuggling: Application of Structural Equation Model on European and Central Asian Countries

Yıl 2021, Cilt 12, Sayı 29, 272 - 285, 20.02.2021
https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.719806

Öz

Smuggling is done for avoiding taxation through escaping some certain duties in the foreign trade of goods and by-passing border controls. The liberalization of foreign trade without constructing institutional efficiency creates new opportunities for illegal traders. While there are many theoretical studies based on the determinants of smuggling in the literature, studies with applied analyzes are limited. In the study, unlike other studies, smuggling is investigated around the findings obtained from the MIMIC model, which is a special type of Structural Equation Model (SEM). The purpose of the study is to analyze the causes and indicators of smuggling based on 2015 data of selected variables from 52 countries in European and Central Asian in the geographic country classification of World Bank. As a result of the study, the most important determinants of smuggling in European and Central Asian countries are the rule of law, globalization and GDP per capita. For Turkey, the most important determinants of smuggling are found to be cost of imports, trade, tariffs, rule of law, globalization and GDP per capita.

Kaynakça

  • Allingham, M. G. ve Sandmo, A. (1972). Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 1, 323-338.
  • Bayram, N. (2016). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.
  • Beja, E. L. (2008). Estimating trade mis-invoicing from China: 2000-2005. China &World Economy, 16(2), 82–92.
  • Bhagwati, J. (1964). On the under invoicing of imports. Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Statistics, 26, 389-397.
  • Bhagwati, J. ve Hansen, B. (1973). A theoretical analysis of smuggling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 172-187.
  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equation models: ıntroduction to latent variables. New York: Wilev.
  • Borck, R. (2004). Income tax evasion and the penalty structure. Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, 8(5), 1–9.
  • Buehn, A. ve Eichler, S. (2009). Smuggling illegal versus legal goods across the US-Mexico border: a strctural equations model approach, Southern Economic Journal, 76, 328–50
  • Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, 38(10), 1091–1110.
  • Engel, E. M. R. A. ve Jr., J. R. H. (1999). Understanding tax evasion Dynamics. NBER Working Paper. doi:10.3386/w6903
  • Farzanegan, M. R. (2009). Illegal Trade in the Iranian economy: evidence from a structural model. European Journal of Politikal Economy, 25, 489–507.
  • Fishman, R. ve Wei, J. S. (2004). Tax rate and tax evasion: evidence from missing ımports in China. Journal of Political Economy, 112(21), 471-496.
  • Goel, R. K. (2008). Cigarette smuggling: price vs. nonprice incentives. Applied Economics Letters. ISSN 1350-4851, 2008 Taylor and Francis.
  • Green, T. (1977). The smuggling business. New York: NY Cresent Books.
  • Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kaminski, B. (2007). Economic transition in Russia and the new states of Eurasia. M. E. Sharpe, London, 81–120.
  • Kaufmann, D. ve Kaliberda, A. (1996). Integrating the unofficial economy into the dynamics of post socialist economies: a framework of analyses and evidence. Policy Research Working Paper, WDI, Erişim adresi: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/145671468771609920/Integrating-the-unofficial-economy-into-the-dynamics-of-post-socialist-economies-a-framework-of-analysis-and-evidence, (25.07.2019).
  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principle and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guılford Press.
  • Loayza, N. A. (1997). The economics of the informal sector: a simple model and some emprical evidence from Latin America. Policy Reseaech Working Paper, WDI, Erişim adresi: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/685181468743710751/The-economics-of-the-informal-sector-a-simple-model-and-some-empirical-evidence-from-Latin-America, (19.04.2019).
  • Manasan, R. G. (1988). Tax evasion in the Phillipines 1981-1985. Journal of Phillipine Development, 15(2), 167–190.
  • McDonald, D. C. (1985). Trade data discrepancies and the ıncentive to smuggle an emprical analysis. IMF Palgrave macmillan- JSTOR, 32, 668–692.
  • Miskama, M., Noorb, R. M., Omarc, N. ve AbdAzizd, R. (2013). Determinants of tax evasion on imported vehicles, Procedia Economics and Finance, 7, 205–212.
  • Nejad, M. S. (2011). Scientific paper suggestion about goods and currency smuggling phenomenon ın view of Iran economic rights. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(9).
  • Pohit, S. ve Taneja, N. (2003). India's informal trade with Bangladesh: A qualitative assesment. Blacwell Publishing Ltd, 1190-1191.
  • Saez, E. (2004). Direct or indirect tax instruments for redistribution: Short-run versus long-run. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 503–518.
  • Selimaek, L. (2005). The penalisation of tax violations and criminal tax offences in Slovenian law, Journal of Money Laundering Control, 8(2), 173–177.
  • Stephen, A. R., Boddewyn, J. J. ve Sproul, S. R. (1991). International smuggling: environmental factors and corporate ımplications. 4 IJCM, 1(1-2).
  • Watrin, C. ve Ullmann, R. (2008). Comparing direct and indirect taxation: the influence of framing on tax compliance. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 5(1), 23–56.

Kaçakçılığın Belirleyicileri: Avrupa ve Orta Asya Ülkeleri Üzerine Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli Uygulaması

Yıl 2021, Cilt 12, Sayı 29, 272 - 285, 20.02.2021
https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.719806

Öz

Kaçakçılık, malların dış ticaretindeki belli başlı bazı yükümlülüklerden kaçmak ve / veya sınır kontrollerinden kurtulmak için vergilendirmeden kaçınma faaliyetidir. Kurumsal etkinlik sağlanmadan dış ticarette serbestleşmenin gerçekleştirilmesi, kaçak ticaret yapanlara yeni fırsatlar doğurmaktadır. Kaçakçılığın belirleyicileri konusunda literatürde çok sayıda teorik incelemeye dayalı çalışma yer alırken; uygulamalı analizlerin yer aldığı çalışmalar sınırlı sayıdadır. Bu çalışmada kaçakçılık, diğer çalışmalardan farklı olarak, Yapısal Eşitlik Modelinin özel bir çeşidi olan MIMIC modelinden elde edilen bulgular etrafında incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Dünya Bankası’nın coğrafi ülke sınıflandırmasında Avrupa ve Orta Asya'da yer alan 52 ülkeye ait seçilmiş değişkenlerin 2015 yılına ilişkin verilerinden yola çıkarak, kaçakçılığın nedenlerini ve göstergelerini analiz etmektir. Bu çalışma sonucunda, Avrupa ve Orta Asya ülkelerinde kaçakçılığın en önemli belirleyicilerinin hukuk düzeni, küreselleşme ve kişi başına GSMH olduğu iken; Türkiye'de ithalat maliyetleri, ticaretin GSMH içerisindeki payı, tarife oranları, hukuk düzeni, küreselleşme ve kişi başına GSMH olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. 

Kaynakça

  • Allingham, M. G. ve Sandmo, A. (1972). Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 1, 323-338.
  • Bayram, N. (2016). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.
  • Beja, E. L. (2008). Estimating trade mis-invoicing from China: 2000-2005. China &World Economy, 16(2), 82–92.
  • Bhagwati, J. (1964). On the under invoicing of imports. Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Statistics, 26, 389-397.
  • Bhagwati, J. ve Hansen, B. (1973). A theoretical analysis of smuggling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 172-187.
  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equation models: ıntroduction to latent variables. New York: Wilev.
  • Borck, R. (2004). Income tax evasion and the penalty structure. Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, 8(5), 1–9.
  • Buehn, A. ve Eichler, S. (2009). Smuggling illegal versus legal goods across the US-Mexico border: a strctural equations model approach, Southern Economic Journal, 76, 328–50
  • Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, 38(10), 1091–1110.
  • Engel, E. M. R. A. ve Jr., J. R. H. (1999). Understanding tax evasion Dynamics. NBER Working Paper. doi:10.3386/w6903
  • Farzanegan, M. R. (2009). Illegal Trade in the Iranian economy: evidence from a structural model. European Journal of Politikal Economy, 25, 489–507.
  • Fishman, R. ve Wei, J. S. (2004). Tax rate and tax evasion: evidence from missing ımports in China. Journal of Political Economy, 112(21), 471-496.
  • Goel, R. K. (2008). Cigarette smuggling: price vs. nonprice incentives. Applied Economics Letters. ISSN 1350-4851, 2008 Taylor and Francis.
  • Green, T. (1977). The smuggling business. New York: NY Cresent Books.
  • Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kaminski, B. (2007). Economic transition in Russia and the new states of Eurasia. M. E. Sharpe, London, 81–120.
  • Kaufmann, D. ve Kaliberda, A. (1996). Integrating the unofficial economy into the dynamics of post socialist economies: a framework of analyses and evidence. Policy Research Working Paper, WDI, Erişim adresi: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/145671468771609920/Integrating-the-unofficial-economy-into-the-dynamics-of-post-socialist-economies-a-framework-of-analysis-and-evidence, (25.07.2019).
  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principle and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guılford Press.
  • Loayza, N. A. (1997). The economics of the informal sector: a simple model and some emprical evidence from Latin America. Policy Reseaech Working Paper, WDI, Erişim adresi: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/685181468743710751/The-economics-of-the-informal-sector-a-simple-model-and-some-empirical-evidence-from-Latin-America, (19.04.2019).
  • Manasan, R. G. (1988). Tax evasion in the Phillipines 1981-1985. Journal of Phillipine Development, 15(2), 167–190.
  • McDonald, D. C. (1985). Trade data discrepancies and the ıncentive to smuggle an emprical analysis. IMF Palgrave macmillan- JSTOR, 32, 668–692.
  • Miskama, M., Noorb, R. M., Omarc, N. ve AbdAzizd, R. (2013). Determinants of tax evasion on imported vehicles, Procedia Economics and Finance, 7, 205–212.
  • Nejad, M. S. (2011). Scientific paper suggestion about goods and currency smuggling phenomenon ın view of Iran economic rights. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(9).
  • Pohit, S. ve Taneja, N. (2003). India's informal trade with Bangladesh: A qualitative assesment. Blacwell Publishing Ltd, 1190-1191.
  • Saez, E. (2004). Direct or indirect tax instruments for redistribution: Short-run versus long-run. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 503–518.
  • Selimaek, L. (2005). The penalisation of tax violations and criminal tax offences in Slovenian law, Journal of Money Laundering Control, 8(2), 173–177.
  • Stephen, A. R., Boddewyn, J. J. ve Sproul, S. R. (1991). International smuggling: environmental factors and corporate ımplications. 4 IJCM, 1(1-2).
  • Watrin, C. ve Ullmann, R. (2008). Comparing direct and indirect taxation: the influence of framing on tax compliance. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 5(1), 23–56.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Sosyal Çalışma, İktisat
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Hande AKSÖZ YILMAZ> (Sorumlu Yazar)
KIRŞEHİR AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0002-1115-7535
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 20 Şubat 2021
Gönderilme Tarihi 14 Nisan 2020
Kabul Tarihi 22 Ocak 2021
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021, Cilt 12, Sayı 29

Kaynak Göster

APA Aksöz Yılmaz, H. (2021). Kaçakçılığın Belirleyicileri: Avrupa ve Orta Asya Ülkeleri Üzerine Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli Uygulaması . Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi , 12 (29) , 272-285 . DOI: 10.21076/vizyoner.719806

570ceb1545981.jpglogo.pngmiar.pnglogo.pnglogo-minik.pngdownloadimageedit_26_6265761829.pngacarlogoTR.png5bd95eb5f3a21.jpg26784img.pngoaji.gifdownloadlogo.pngLogo-png-768x897.png26838