SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 4

AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON TAX-EXPENDITURE HYPOTHESIS WITH GREGORY HANSEN COINTEGRATION METHOD: EXAMPLE OF TURKEY (2006-2022)

GREGORY HANSEN KOENTEGRASYON YÖNTEMİYLE VERGİ-HARCAMA HİPOTEZİ ÜZERİNE AMPİRİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ (2006-2022)

Mesut Fenkli(MANISA CELAL BAYAR UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5787-7979
Doğan Uysal(MANİSA CELÂL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9406-0757
Pages
1572–1601
Publication Date
2022-12-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, both methods gave similar results and it was concluded that the tax-expenditure hypothesis is valid for Turkey (2006-2022).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Friedman’s tax-expenditure hypothesis was investigated through the example of Turkey (2006-2022).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The implementation of the research was carried out in two stages.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, both methods gave similar results and it was concluded that the tax-expenditure hypothesis is valid for Turkey (2006-2022).
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2006-2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Zaman Serisi · Birim Kök Testleri · Koentegrasyon

Abstract

In this study, M. Friedman’s tax-expenditure hypothesis was investigated through the example of Turkey (2006-2022). The implementation of the research was carried out in two stages. First, the variables of the research were subjected to traditional unit root tests (Augmented Dickey-Fuller test and Phillips-Perron test) and then the Engel-Granger cointegration analysis was performed. In the second stage, the variables were subjected to unit root tests with structural break (Zivot-Andrews test and Lee-Strazicich test) and Gregory-Hansen cointegration analysis, which took into account the structural break, was performed. As a result, both methods gave similar results and it was concluded that the tax-expenditure hypothesis is valid for Turkey (2006-2022).

Özet

Bu çalışmada M. Friedman’ın vergi-harcama hipotezi Türkiye (2006-2022) örneği üzerinden araştırılmıştır. Araştırmanın uygulaması iki aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir. İlk olarak araştırmanın değişkenleri geleneksel birim kök testlerine (Augmented Dickey-Fuller ve Phillips-Perron testlerine) tabi tutulmuş ve ardından Engel-Granger koentegrasyon analizi yapılmıştır. İkinci aşamada değişkenler yapısal kırılmalı birim kök testlerine (Zivot-Andrews ve Lee-Strazicich testlerine) tabi tutulmuş ve yapısal kırılmayı dikkate alan Gregory-Hansen koentegrasyon analizi yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak her iki yöntem benzer sonuçlar vermiş ve vergi-harcama hipotezinin Türkiye (2006-2022) için geçerli olduğunu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Fenkli, M., Uysal, D. (2022). AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON TAX-EXPENDITURE HYPOTHESIS WITH GREGORY HANSEN COINTEGRATION METHOD: EXAMPLE OF TURKEY (2006-2022). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 4, 1572–1601. https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.1177104

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (49)

  1. Akbulut, H. & Yereli, A. B. (2016). Kamu gelirleri ve kamu harcamaları nedensellik ilişkisi: 2006-2015 dönemi için türkiye örneği, Sosyoekonomi, 24 (27), 103-120.
  2. Akçağlayan, A. & Kayıran, M. (2010). Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ve gelirleri: nedensellik ilişkisi üzerine bir araştırma, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (2), 129-146.
  3. Aktan, C. C. (2006). En az devlet en iyi devlet (devletin başarısızlığının anatomisi), Konya: Çizgi Kitapevi.
  4. Alfonso, A. & Rault, C. (2009). Spend and tax: a panel data ınvestigation for the EU, Economics Bulletin, 29 (4), 2542-2548.
  5. Apergıs, N., Payne, J. E. & Saunoris, J. W. (2012). Tax-spend nexus in greece: are there asymmetries?, Journal of Economic Studies, 39 (3), 327–336.
  6. Aysu, A. & Bakırtaş, D. (2018). Kamu harcamaları ve vergi gelirleri arasındaki asimetrik nedensellik ilişkisi: türkiye örneği, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (51), 1-19.
  7. Barro, R. J. (1979), On the determination of public debt, journal of political economy, 87 (5), Part 1, 940‐971.
  8. Best, R. (2008). An ıntroduction to error correction models, Oxford Spring School for Quantative Methods in Social Research.
  9. Brown, R. L., Durbin, J. & Evans, J. M. (1975). Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 37 (2), 149-192.
  10. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427-431.
  11. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49, 1057-1072.
  12. Dilekli, S. & Yeşilkaya, K. (2002). Maastricht kriterleri, avrupa birliği ile ilişkiler genel müdürlüğü, http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/ab/maastricht/dileklis/kriter.pdf Erişim Tarihi (15.05.2022).
  13. Dökmen, G. (2012). Yolsuzlukların vergi gelirleri üzerindeki etkisi: dinamik panel veri analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 13 (1), 41-51.
  14. Engle, R. F. & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing, Econometrica, Vol: 25, No: 2, 251-276.
  15. Friedman, M. (1978). The limitations of tax limitation, Policy Review 5, 7-14.
  16. Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı, (2022). https://www.gib.gov.tr/ Erişim Tarihi (16.05.2022).
  17. Gregory, A.W. & Hansen, B. E. (1996a). Tests for cointegration in models with regime and trend shifts, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58 (3), 555-60.
  18. Gregory, A. W. & Hansen, B. E. (1996b). Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts, Journal of Econometrics, 70 (1), 99-126.
  19. Gürdal, T., Aydın, M. & İnan, V. (2021). The relationship between tax revenue, government expenditure and economic growth in g7 countries: new evidence from time and frequency domain approaches, Economic Change and Restructuring, 54 (2), 305-337.
  20. Hong, T. J. (2009). Tax-and-spend or spend-and-tax? empirical evidence from Malaysia, Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance, 5 (1), 107-115.
  21. Hoover, K. D. ve S. M. Sheffrin (1992), Causation, spending, and taxes: sand in the sandbox or tax collector for the welfare state?, American Economic Review, 82 (1), 225‐48.
  22. Kaya, A. & Şen, H. (2013). How to achieve and sustain fiscal discipline in turkey: rising taxes, reducing government spending or a combination of both?, Romanian Journal of Fiscal Policy, Vol: 4, Issue: 1 (6), 1-26.
  23. Kunitomo, N. (1996). tests of unit roots and cointegration hypotheses in econometric models, Japanese Economic Review, 47 (1), pp. 79-109.
  24. Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85 (4), 1082-1089.
  25. Musgrave, Richard (1996), Principles of budget determination in public finance: selected readings,. New York: Random House.
  26. Meltzer, Allan ve Richard Scott (1981), A rational theory of the size of government, Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914–927.
  27. Miller, S. M. ve Russek, F. S., (1990) Co-integration and error-correction models, temporal causality between government taxes and spendings”, Southern Economic Journal, 57, s.33-51.
  28. Newblod, P. (2016). İşletme ve İktisat İçin İstatistik (Çev. Ümit Şenesen), İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık.
  29. Onay, C. (2006). A Cointegration Analysis Approach to European Union Integration: The Case of Acceding and Candidate Countries, European Integration online Papers, 10, 1-16.
  30. Payne, J. E. (2003). A survey of the ınternational empirical evidence on tax-spend debate, Public Finance Review, 32(3), 302-324.
  31. Peacock, A. T. & Wiseman, J. (1961). The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom, UK. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  32. Phillips, P. C. B. & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression, Biometrika, 75 (2), 335-346.
  33. Resmî Gazete, (2003). 25326 Sayılı.
  34. Resmî Gazete, (2020). 31349 Sayılı.
  35. Resmî Gazete, (2006). 26205 Sayılı.
  36. Resmî Gazete, (2021). 31462 Sayılı.
  37. Resmî Gazete, (2016). 30285 Sayılı.
  38. Resmî Gazete, (2018a). 30412 Sayılı.
  39. Resmî Gazete, (2018b). 30474 Sayılı.
  40. Resmî Gazete, Cumhurbaşkanı Kararı 843 Sayılı (2019). 30721 Sayılı.
  41. Saunoris, J. W. & Payne, J. E. (2010). Tax more or spend less? asymmetries in the uk revenue-expenditure nexus, Journal of Policy Modeling, 32, 478–487.
  42. Terzi, H. & Oltulular, S. (2006). Harcama-Vergi Geliri Hipotezi: Türkiye Örneği Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 2, Cilt: 20, 1-8.
  43. TCMB, E. (2022). https://evds2.tcmb.gov.tr/index.php?/evds/serieMarket Erişim Tarihi (20.05.2022).
  44. TÜRMOB, (2022). https://www.turmob.org.tr/Sirkuler Erişim Tarihi (16.05.2022).
  45. Yılancı, V. (2009). Yapısal kırılmalar altında Türkiye için işsizlik histerisinin sınanması, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10 (2), 324-335.
  46. Yılancı, V., Şaşmaz V. Ü. & Öztürk, Ö. F. (2020). Türkiye’de kamu harcamaları ile vergi gelirleri arasındaki ilişki: frekans alanda asimetrik testinden kanıtlar, Sayıştay Dergisi, 31(116), 121-139.
  47. Zivot, E. & Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock and the unit-root hypothesis, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10 (3), 251-270.
  48. Wildavsky, Aaron (1988), The new politics of the budgetary process. glenview: scott, Foresman & Co
  49. Williamson, J. (2005). The strange history of washington consensus, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol: 27, No: 2, 195-206.