SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Public Finance / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1

Asymmetric Effects of Direct and Indirect Taxes on Fertility: NARDL Approach

Ersin Yavuz(PAMUKKALE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2543-3393
Tahsin Avcı(PAMUKKALE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7243-8541
Pages
1–16
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️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)

The findings reveal the need to structure direct taxes in the direction of a pronatalist approach in population policies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the paper is to analyze the asymmetric effects of direct and indirect taxes on fertility rate in Türkiye for the period 1980-2023 with the help of empirical methods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The explanatory variables include direct and indirect taxes as well as economic growth rate, inflation rate and unemployment rate as control variables.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal the need to structure direct taxes in the direction of a pronatalist approach in population policies.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:NARDL · Asymmetric · Direct Tax

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to analyze the asymmetric effects of direct and indirect taxes on fertility rate in Türkiye for the period 1980-2023 with the help of empirical methods. The explanatory variables include direct and indirect taxes as well as economic growth rate, inflation rate and unemployment rate as control variables. In the analysis section, KSS unit root test and NARDL cointegration approaches that take into account the nonlinearity in the data structure are applied to detect asymmetric behavior. Empirical evidence reveals that the variables are cointegrated in the long run. According to the long-run coefficient findings, positive shocks in direct taxes, negative shocks in indirect taxes, economic growth, inflation and unemployment put pressure on fertility. On the flip side, negative shocks in direct taxes and positive shocks in indirect taxes improve fertility. The paper proves the asymmetric behavior of direct and indirect taxes on fertility. The findings reveal the need to structure direct taxes in the direction of a pronatalist approach in population policies. Lastly, the paper offers policy recommendations in the field of taxation in order to increase the fertility rate.

Özet

The aim of the paper is to analyze the asymmetric effects of direct and indirect taxes on the fertility rate in Türkiye for the period 1980-2023 with the help of empirical methods. The explanatory variables include direct and indirect taxes as well as economic growth rate, inflation rate and unemployment rate as control variables. In the analysis section, KSS unit root test and NARDL cointegration approaches that take into account the nonlinearity in the data structure are applied to detect asymmetric behavior. Empirical evidence reveals that the variables are cointegrated in the long run. According to the long-run coefficient findings, positive shocks in direct taxes, negative shocks in indirect taxes, economic growth, inflation and unemployment put pressure on fertility. On the flip side, negative shocks in direct taxes and positive shocks in indirect taxes improve fertility. The paper proves the asymmetric behavior of direct and indirect taxes on fertility. The findings reveal the need to structure direct taxes in the direction of a pronatalist approach in population policies. Lastly, the paper offers policy recommendations in the field of taxation in order to increase the fertility rate.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yavuz, E., Avcı, T. (2026). Asymmetric Effects of Direct and Indirect Taxes on Fertility: NARDL Approach. International Journal of Public Finance, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.30927/ijpf.1744906

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Akin, C. S. & Aytun, C. (2016). “Causality Relationship Between Fertility Rate and Socioeconomic Factors In Turkey: Toda Yamamato Approach”. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Eurasian Business & Economics Journal, 6, 42-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.17740/eas.econ.2016.V6.
  2. Azmat, G., & González, L. (2010). “Targeting Fertility and Female Participation through the Income Tax”. Labour Economics, 17(3), 487-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2009.09.006.
  3. Bakkal, S. (2025). “Türkiye’de Yüksek Enflasyon Nedeniyle Doğum Oranlarının Azalması ve Sonuçları”. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(56), 814-840. https://doi.org/10.35408/comuybd.1559881.
  4. Baughman, R. & Dickert-Conlin, S. (2009). “The Earned Income Tax Credit and Fertility”. Journal of Population Economics, 22(3), 537-563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-007-0177-0.
  5. Becker, G. S. (1960). “An Economic Analysis of Fertility”. In: Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research (eds.) Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries (209-240). National Bureau of Economic Research/Columbia University Press.
  6. Becker, G. S. (1992). “Fertility and the Economy”. Journal of Population Economics, 5(3), 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00172092.
  7. Beyiz, Z. (2025). “Türkiye’de Doğurganlığın Sosyoekonomik Dinamikleri: Mekânsal Panel Veri Ekonometrisi Çerçevesinden Bir Analiz”. Nişantaşı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(Özel Sayı), 14-35. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1808030.
  8. Broock, W. A., Scheinkman, J. A., Dechert, W. D. & LeBaron, B. (1996). “A Test for Independence Based on The Correlation Dimension”. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474939608800353.
  9. Cazzola, A., Pasquini, L. & Angeli, A. (2016). “The Relationship between Unemployment and Fertility in Italy: A Time-Series Analysis”. Demographic Research, 34, 1-38. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.1.
  10. Ceylan, H. & Kesen, H. (2024). “Türkiye'de Y ve Z Kuşağına Mensup Kadınların Doğurganlığa Karşı Tutumlarının Belirlenmesi”. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 134, 85-103. https://doi.org/10.29228/ASOS.64320.
  11. Cruz, J. R. B. D., Dequilla, M. C. M. & Pizarro-Uy, A. C. D. (2022). “Impact of the Inflation Rate, Gross Domestic Product, and the Unemployment Rate on the Fertility Rate of the Philippines”. Journal of Economics, Finance, and Accounting Studies, 4(2), 259-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.32996/jefas.2022.4.2.20.
  12. Currie, J. & Schwandt, H. (2014). “Short-and Long-Term Effects of Unemployment on Fertility”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(41), 14734-14739. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408975111.
  13. Deliktaş, E., Usta, S., Bozkurt, S. & Helvaci, B. (2008). “Türkiye’de Kentlerde Doğurganlık Hızını Etkileyen Faktörler: Path Analizi Yaklaşımı”. Ege Academic Review, 8(2), 877-895.
  14. Ertürkmen, G. (2025). “Ekonomik Büyüme, Kadınların Eğitimi ve İstihdamı Arasındaki İlişkinin Fertiliteye Yansıması”. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (Aile Yılı Özel Sayısı), 456-480.
  15. Erul, R. D. (2021). “Bebek ve Çocuk Ürünlerine Uygulanan KDV: İngiltere Örneği”. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(4), 285-294.
  16. Fernandez-Crehuet, J. M., Gil-Alana, L. A. & Barco, C. M. (2020). “Unemployment and Fertility: A Long Run Relationship”. Social Indicators Research, 152(3), 1177-1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02468-8.
  17. Georgellis, Y. & Wall, H. J. (1992). “The Fertility Effect of Dependent Tax Exemptions: Estimates for The United States”. Applied Economics, 24(10), 1139-1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036849200000007.
  18. İğdeli, A. (2019). “Ekonomik Belirsizlik ve Doğurganlık Hızı Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye İçin ARDL Analizi”. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 359-381.
  19. Ihori, T. (2017). Principles of Public Finance. Singapore: Springer Science Business Media.
  20. International Monetary Fund (2025). World Economic Outlook, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/april (Accessed: 05.06.2025).
  21. Işık, S. (2025). “Türkiye’de Vergi Yükü İle Doğum Oranları Arasındaki İlişkinin Ampirik Analizi”. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 26(Özel Sayı), 2511-2527. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.1766718.
  22. Jarque, C. M. & Bera, A. K. (1987). “A Test for Normality of Observations and Regression Residuals”. International Statistical Review, 55(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403192.
  23. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y. & Snell, A. (2003). “Testing for A Unit Root in The Nonlinear STAR Framework”. Journal of Econometrics, 112(2), 359-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00202-6.
  24. Kılıç, E., Ergen, E. & Yavuz, E. (2022). “OECD Ülkelerinde İşsizlik Histerisinin İncelenmesi: Doğrusal Olmayan Fourier Kırılmalı Testlerden Kanıtlar”. Nişantaşı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1090723.
  25. Koyuncu, J. Y. & Okşak, Y. (2022). “Does Higher Inflation Mean Lower Fertility Rate: The Case of Turkey”. Balkan Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(21), 7-14.
  26. KPMG (2026). Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, Family and Child Support, https://kpmgvergi.com/pratik-bilgiler/3/5 (Accessed: 05.02.2026).
  27. Kristensen, A. P. & Lappegård, T. (2022). “Unemployment and Fertility”. Demographic Research, 46, 1037-1064. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2022.46.35.
  28. Kutlar, A., Erdem, E. & Aydın, F. F. (2012). “Kadınların İşgücüne Katılması İle Doğurganlık, Boşanma ve Ücret Haddi Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye Üzerine Bir Araştırma”. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 7(1), 149-168.
  29. Madia, J. E., Moscone, F., Tabaghdehi, A. H., An, J. C. & Lee, C. (2025). “Fertility Decline and Tax Revenues in South Korea”. Research in Economics, 79(2), 101025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rie.2025.101025.
  30. Milligan, K. (2005). “Subsidizing The Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility”. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(3), 539-555. https://doi.org/10.1162/0034653054638382.
  31. Ministry of Family and Social Services (2013). Declining Fertility Rates in Türkiye: Potential Effects and Social Policy Recommendations. Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Family and Social Policies, General Directorate of Family and Community Services, Research and Policy Series 18, Ankara.
  32. Ministry of Treasury and Finance (2024). The Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Treasury and Finance, https://www.hmb.gov.tr/haberler/kdv-oranlari-artiriliyor-iddialarina-iliskin-basin-aciklamasi (Accessed: 05.02.2026).
  33. Öztürk, L. (2012). “Türkiye’de İllerin Yoksulluk Nedeni Olarak Toplam Doğurganlık Hızları: Yatay Kesit Bir Analiz, 1990-2000”. Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 193-210.
  34. Parent, D., & Wang, L. (2007). “Tax Incentives and Fertility in Canada: Quantum vs Tempo Effects”. Canadian Journal of Economics, 40(2), 371-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.00413.x.
  35. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. & Smith, R. J. (2001). “Bounds Testing Approaches to The Analysis of Level Relationships”. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616.
  36. Shin, Y., Yu, B. & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). “Modelling Asymmetric Cointegration and Dynamic Multipliers in a Nonlinear ARDL Framework”. In: Sickles, R., Horrace, W. (eds.) Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt (281-314). New York: Springer, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9.
  37. Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Economics of The Public Sector (Third Edition). New York: W.W. Norton Company.
  38. Strategy and Budget Directorate (2025). Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, Strategy and Budget Directorate, Economic and Social Indicators, https://www.sbb.gov.tr/ekonomik-ve-sosyal-gostergeler/ (Accessed: 05.06.2025).
  39. Tanzi, V. (2011). Government versus markets: The changing economic role of the state, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511973154.
  40. Turkish Statistical Institute (2024). Birth Statistics, 2024, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Birth-Statistics-2024-54196&dil=2.
  41. United Nations (2025). Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Population Prospects 2024, https://population.un.org/wpp/ (Accessed: 13.06.2025).
  42. Whittington, L. A. (1992). “Taxes and The Family: The Impact of The Tax Exemption for Dependents on Marital Fertility”. Demography, 29(2), 215-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061728.
  43. Whittington, L. A., Alm, J., & Peters, H. E. (1990). “Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Implicit Pronatalist Policy in the United States”. The American Economic Review, 80(3), 545-556.
  44. World Bank (2025). World Development Indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (Accessed: 05.06.2025).
  45. Wu, T. (2024). “Inflation and Reproduction: The Impact of Inflation Targeting on Fertility in Emerging Economies”. China Population and Development Studies, 8(3), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42379-024-00167-2.
  46. Yavuz, E. & Avcı, T. (2024). “Vergi Yükünün Doğurganlık Oranı Üzerindeki Etkisinin Ampirik Analizi”. İçinde Baltezarević, R. (Ed.), 6th International Black Sea Modern Scientific Research Congress/ Full Texts Book (773-783). IKSAD Publications.
  47. Yavuz, R. A. (2023). “Türkiye’de 1990-2021 Döneminde Kadının İşgücüne Katılımı İle Kentleşme İlişkisi: Nedensellik Analizi”. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 16(2), 541-560. https://doi.org/10.37093/ijsi.1292949.
  48. Yip, T. M. & Lai, S. L. (2025). “An Analysis of Malaysia’s Falling Fertility Rate: Does Inflation Matter?”. Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, 59(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2025-5901-1.