SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Public Finance / 2025 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

An Analysis of Social Protection Expenditure Performance in Upper-Middle-Income Countries

Betül İnam(BİLECİK ŞEYH EDEBALİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, BOZÜYÜK MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-6160-3740
Dilek Murat(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0002-5667-8094
Pages
341–360
Publication Date
2025-12-28
🏛️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 results indicate that Bulgaria, Serbia, and Belarus achieved the highest performance, while Paraguay, Azerbaijan, and South Africa recorded the lowest.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Social protection expenditures are a fundamental component of welfare policies and economic stability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study evaluates the performance of social protection expenditures across twenty-six upper-middle-income countries classified according to the World Bank’s Atlas method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that Bulgaria, Serbia, and Belarus achieved the highest performance, while Paraguay, Azerbaijan, and South Africa recorded the lowest.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:social protection expenditures · institutional quality · fiscal capacity

Abstract

Social protection expenditures are a fundamental component of welfare policies and economic stability. This study evaluates the performance of social protection expenditures across twenty-six upper-middle-income countries classified according to the World Bank’s Atlas method. Using 2023 data, five key indicators—social protection expenditure, tax revenues, unemployment rate, institutional quality, and the share of the elderly population—were analyzed through the MAIRCA method. The results indicate that Bulgaria, Serbia, and Belarus achieved the highest performance, while Paraguay, Azerbaijan, and South Africa recorded the lowest. Turkey ranked nineteenth, sharing similar structural characteristics with low-performing countries. The findings highlight that fiscal capacity, institutional quality, and demographic structure are the main determinants of social protection performance. The study suggests that countries with low performance should focus on broadening the tax base, improving institutional efficiency, and enhancing the inclusiveness of social protection systems.

Özet

Social protection expenditures are a fundamental component of welfare policies and economic stability. This study evaluates the performance of social protection expenditures across twenty-six upper-middle-income countries classified according to the World Bank’s Atlas method. Using 2023 data, five key indicators—social protection expenditure, tax revenues, unemployment rate, institutional quality, and the share of the elderly population—were analyzed through the MAIRCA method. The results indicate that Bulgaria, Serbia, and Belarus achieved the highest performance, while Paraguay, Azerbaijan, and South Africa recorded the lowest. Turkey ranked nineteenth, sharing similar structural characteristics with low-performing countries. The findings highlight that fiscal capacity, institutional quality, and demographic structure are the main determinants of social protection performance. The study suggests that countries with low performance should focus on broadening the tax base, improving institutional efficiency, and enhancing the inclusiveness of social protection systems.

🔖

Cite This Article

İnam, B., Murat, D. (2025). An Analysis of Social Protection Expenditure Performance in Upper-Middle-Income Countries. International Journal of Public Finance, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 341–360. https://doi.org/10.30927/ijpf.1638379

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (50)

  1. Ayçin, E. (2020). “Using CRITIC and MAIRCA Methods in Personnel Selection Process”, The Business Journal, 1(1), 1-12
  2. Bergh, A., Kolev, A. & Tassot, C. (2017). Economic globalisation, Inequality and the role of socail protection. OECD Working Paper No: 341.
  3. Bhorat, H., Cassim, A., Ewinyu, A., & Steenkamp, F. (2017). Social Protection and Inequality in Africa: Exploring the Interaction, Income Inequality Trends in Sub Sahran Africa: Divergence, determinants and consequences, Newyork: UNDP Publications.
  4. Bonoli, G. (2005). “The politics of the new social policies: Providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states”. Policy & Politics, 33(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1332/0305573054325765
  5. Bölükbaş, M. & Bölükbaş, M. T. (2022). “İşsizliğe Yönelik Sosyal Koruma Harcamalarının Vergi Gelirleri ile İlişkisi”. Aydın Adnan Menderes University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences. 9(2),173-193.
  6. Buğra, A., & Adar, S. (2007). Turkey’nin Kamu Sosyal Koruma Harcamalarının Karşılaştırmalı Analizi. Sosyal Politika Forumu, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://spf.bogazici.edu.tr/sites/spf.boun.edu.tr/files/T%C3%BCrkiye%E2%80%99nin%20Kamu%20Sosyal%20Koruma%20Harcamalar%C4%B1n%C4%B1n%20Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1la%C5%9Ft%C4%B1rmal%C4%B1%20Bir%20Analizi%20%282007%29.pdf
  7. Causa, O., Serres, A., & Ruiz, N. (2015). “Can pro growth policies lift all boats? An analysis based on household disposable income”. OECD Journal: Economic Studies. 1, 227-268.
  8. Coady, D. (2018). “Creating Fiscal Space- Enhancing domestic tax capacity is essential for strengthening social protection and developing human capital”. Finance and Development. December 2018, 24-27.
  9. Cordis, A. S. (2014). “Corruption and the Composition of Public expenditure in the United States”. Public Finance Review. 42(6), 745-773. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142114531320
  10. Çelikay, F. (2023). “Social protection expenditure and chronic unemployment: evidence from OECD countries” Review of Economics and Political Science. 8(2), 86-107. https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-02-2022-0020
  11. Dang, T-T., Immervoll, H., Mantovani, D., Orsini, K.& Sutherland, H. (2006). An Age Perspective on Economic Well-Beingand Social Protection in Nine OECD Countries. IZA DP No: 2173, http://www.iza.org/publications/dps/.
  12. Delavallade, C. (2006). “Corruption and Distribution of Public expenditure in Developing Countries”. Journal Of Economics and Finance. 9(30), 222-239.
  13. Ding, H. (2012). Unemployment and Welfare State: What do the Data Tell Us?. MPRA Paper No. 41921. t https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41921/
  14. Dzhumashev, R.(2014).“Corruption and growth: The role of governance, public expenditure, and economic development”. Economic Modelling. 37, 202-2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.11.007
  15. Ecer, F. (2021). “Sustainable Supplier Selection: Fucom Subjective Weighting Method Based Mairca Approach”. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty. 8(1), 26-48.
  16. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
  17. European Commission. (2021). The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1226&langId=en
  18. EUROSTAT. (2016). European system of integrated social protection statistics, (2016 edition), Luxemburg: European Union Published.
  19. Famulska, T., Kaczmarzyk, J.& Grząba, M. (2020). “The Relationship Between Tax Revenue and Public Social Expenditure in the EU Member States”. European Research Studies Journal. 23(4), 1136-1156.
  20. Greve, B. (2019). Welfare and the Welfare State: Present and Future. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429054915
  21. Geyik, O. &Şeren, G.Y. (2021). “Vergilerin Sosyal Harcamalar Özelinde Topluma Geri Dönüşü: Turkey Üzerine Bir Analiz”. Journal Of Aksaray Unıversıty Faculty Of Economıcs And Admınıstratıve Scıence. 13(3), 17-28. DOI: 10.52791/aksarayiibd.971658.
  22. Gigović, L., Pamučar, D., Bajić, Z. & Milićević, M. (2016). “The Combination of Expert Judgment and GIS-MAIRCA Analysis for the Selection of Sites for Ammunition Depots”. Sustainability. 8(4), 1-30.
  23. Haelg, F., Potrafke, N. & Sturm, J. E. (2022). “The determinants of social expenditures in OECD countries”. Public Choice. 193, 233–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-022-00984-4
  24. Halaskova, R. & Bednar, P. (2020). “Relationship of Social Protection Expenditures and Socio- economic Indicators: A Panel Data Analysis of the EU Countries”. Montenegrin Journal of Economics. 16(2),19-31.
  25. Hemerijck, A. (2013). Changing Welfare States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199603121.001.0001
  26. ILO. (2014). World Social Protection Report: Building economic recovery, inclusive development and social justice, 2014/15, Geneva: ILO Publishing
  27. ILO. (2021). World Social Protection Report 2020–22: Social protection at the crossroads in pursuit of a better future, Geneva: ILO Publishing.
  28. ILO. (2024). World Social Protection Report 2024-2026: Universal Social Protection for Climate Action and a Just Transition, Geneva: International Labour Office.
  29. Kapar, R. (2015). “Uluslararası Çalışma Örgütünün Sosyal Koruma Tabanları Yaklaşımı”. Karatahta/İş Yazıları Dergisi. 1, 181-209.
  30. Kaymak, H. & Dökmen, G. (2021). “Nüfus Yaş Yapısındaki Değişimin Bütçe Açıklarına Etkisi”. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi. 6(3), 459-476.
  31. Merrien, F. X. (2013). “Social Protection as Development Policy: A New International Agenda for Action”. International Development Policy | Revue internationale de politique de développement. 4 (2), 89-106.
  32. Murshed, S. M., Badiuzzaman, M. & Pulok, M. H. (2017). Fiscal capacity and social protection expenditure in developing nations, WIDER Working Paper, No. 2017/60, https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2017/284-7.
  33. Nsabimana, A. N.(2020). Tax revenues and social protection financing in African and Latin American countries. OECONOMIA. Paradigms, Models, Scenarios and Practices for Strong Sustainability. 979-10-92495-13-3. hal-03098695.
  34. Obinger, H., & Starke, P. (2015). The Politics of Welfare State Transformation in Europe: Modernization in Hard Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745075.001.0001
  35. Orhan, H.S.K., Evcim, N. &Deyneli, F. (2024). “What are the main determinants of social expenditure? A panel data approach for EU and OECD countries”. International Journal of Social Economics. 51(10), 1298-1313. DOI: 10.1108/IJSE-05-2023-0384 Özaydın, M. M. (2015). “Sosyal politikanın tarihsel gelişimi”, İçinde Oral A. İ.& Şişman, Y. (Ed.) Sosyal Politika I (28-53). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını.
  36. Pamucar, D. S., Vasin, L., & Lukovac, V. (2014). Selection of Railway Level Crossings For Investing in Security Equipment Using Hybrid Dematel-Maric Model, XVI. Scientific-Expert Conference on Railways, Railcon, 2014.
  37. Pamucar, D. S., Tarle, S. P., & Parezanovic, T. (2018). “New Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making DEMATEL-MAIRCA Model: Sustainable Selection of a Location for the Development of Multimodal Logistics Centre”. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja. 31(1), 1641-1665.
  38. Piekut, M., & Rybaltowicz, J. (2024). “Comparative study of government expenditure on social protection in the Visegrád Group and Benelux”. Economics and Sociology. 17(1), 280-294. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2024/17-1/17.
  39. Sanz, I. & Velázquez, F. J. (2007). “The role of ageing in the growth of government and social welfare expenditure in the OECD”. European Journal of Political Economy 23. 917–931.
  40. Spasova, S. & Ward,T. (2019). Social protection expenditure and its financing in Europe, A study of national policies 2019, European Social Policy Network (ESPN), Brussels: European Commission.
  41. Tashevska, B., Trpkova-Nestorovska, M. &Mladenouska, S. M. (2020). “Is There A Dominance Of Social Protection Expenditure In The European Union?”. 1st international conference Economic and Business Trends Shaping the Future (33-43). http://doi.org/10.47063/EBTSF.2020.0003
  42. Tashevska, B., Mladenouska, S. M. & Trpkova-Nestorovska, M. (2022). “Socıal Protectıon Expendıtures In Central And Eastern European Countrıes: Does Government Debt Matter?”. 3rd international conference Economic and Business Trends Shaping the Future (21-32). http://doi.org/10.47063/EBTSF.2022.0002
  43. Timofeyev, Y. (2011). “How Corruption Affects Social Expenditures: Evidence From Russia”. Global Journal Of Business Research.5(4), 39-51.
  44. TÜİK (2024). Sosyal Koruma İstatistikleri, 2000 -2022, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Sosyal-Koruma-Istatistikleri-2000-2022-53834. (Erişim:15.01.2025)
  45. Vinci, V., Gassman, F. & Mohnen, P. (2022). “The effect of institutional factors and people’s preferences on expenditure for social protection”. International Social Security Review. 75 (1), 107-154.
  46. World Bank. (2023). World Development Report 2023: Migrants, Refugees and Societies. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  47. Zencirkıran, M. (2017), Sosyoloji, Bursa: Dora Basın Yayın
  48. Zohal, H. (2010). Corruption and Copmposition of Public Expenditures: Evidence from OECD Countries, MPRA Paper No.25945, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/25945.
  49. Geyik, O. &Şeren, G.Y. (2021). “Vergilerin Sosyal Harcamalar Özelinde Topluma Geri Dönüşü: Turkey Üzerine Bir Analiz”. Journal Of Aksaray Unıversıty Faculty Of Economıcs And Admınıstratıve Scıence. 13(3), 17-28. DOI: 10.52791/aksarayiibd.971658.
  50. ILO. (2014). World Social Protection Report: Building economic recovery, inclusive development and social justice, 2014/15, Geneva: ILO Publishing