Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2021 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 47

The Examination of Fiscal Origins of Black Economy by Panel Threshold Model: The Effect of Government Size within the Context of Regulation Efficiency

Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin Mali Kökenlerinin Panel Eşik Modeli ile İncelenmesi: Düzenlemelerin Etkinliği Bağlamında Kamu Kesimi Büyüklüğünün Etkisi

Pages
141–158
Publication Date
2021-01-25
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Our results indicate that government size has no significant effect on the black economy when the regulation efficiency is below the threshold level.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is twofold.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Firstly, we aim to examine the fiscal determinants of the black economy for 26 economies over 2000-2017 by utilizing a linear approach.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our results indicate that government size has no significant effect on the black economy when the regulation efficiency is below the threshold level.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2000-2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kayıt Dışı Ekonomi · Kamu Kesimi Büyüklüğü · Düzenlemeler

Abstract

The purpose of this study is twofold. Firstly, we aim to examine the fiscal determinants of the black economy for 26 economies over 2000-2017 by utilizing a linear approach. Secondly, in parallel to the linear model findings, we seek to investigate the impact of government size on the black economy under two regimes with different regulation efficiencies using a panel threshold model. Our results indicate that government size has no significant effect on the black economy when the regulation efficiency is below the threshold level. On the other hand, when the government regulations are relatively more efficient, we find evidence supporting the significant and negative impact of government size on the black economy.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın iki temel amacı bulunmaktadır. Çalışmada ilk olarak; 2000-2017 yılları için 26 Avrupa ülkesinde kayıt dışılığın mali belirleyicilerinin doğrusal bir yaklaşımla ortaya konulması hedeflenmektedir. Buradan elde edilen bulgular çerçevesinde ikinci olarak; mali değişkenlerden kamu kesimi büyüklüğünün kayıt dışı ekonomi üzerindeki etkisinin düzenlemelerin etkinliğine göre ayrılmış iki ayrı rejimde panel eşik modeli ile incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, düzenleme etkinliği eşik değerin altında iken, kamu kesimi büyüklüğünün kayıt dışı ekonomi üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi ortaya çıkmamaktadır. Buna karşın düzenleme etkinliğinin görece daha yüksek olduğu ikinci rejimde söz konusu etkinin anlamlı ve negatif olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TEKDEMİR, N., İYİDOĞAN, P. V. (2021). The Examination of Fiscal Origins of Black Economy by Panel Threshold Model: The Effect of Government Size within the Context of Regulation Efficiency. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 47, 141–158. https://ajindex.com/articles/139245

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Alm, J. (1999), “Tax Compliance and Administration”, Public Administration and Public Policy, 72, 741-768.
  2. Bohn, S. & E. Owens (2012), “Immigration and the Informal Economy”, Industrial Relations A Journal of Economy and Society, 51(4), 845-873.
  3. Borlea, S.N. & M. Achim & M. Miron (2017), “Corruption, Shadow Economy and Economic Growth: An Empirical Survey across the European Union Countries”, Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldis” Arad. Economics Series, 27, 19-32.
  4. Camacho, C. & F. Mariani & L. Pensieroso (2015), “Illegal Immigration and the Shadow Economy”, Discussion Paper 2015-14,, 10.04.2020.
  5. Cullis, J. & P. Jones (2009),
  6. Public Finance and Public Choice, Oxford University Press.
  7. Dobson, S. & C. Ramlogan-Dobson (2012), “Inequality, Corruption and the Informal Sector”, Economics Letters, 115(1), 104-107.
  8. Dreher, A. & F. Schneider (2006), “Corruption and the Shadow Economy: An Empirical Analysis”, CESifo Working Paper No.1653,, 10.04.2020.
  9. Elgin, C. & B. Uras (2013), “Public Debt, Sovereign Default Risk and Shadow Economy”, Journal of Financial Stability, 9(4), 628-640.
  10. Elgin, C. & F. Schneider (2016), “Shadow economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches”, Bogazici Journal, 30(1), 51-75.
  11. Feldstein, M. (1984), “Debt and Taxes in the Theory of Public Finance”, NBER Working Paper /11433,, 12.04.2020.
  12. Frey, B.S. & H. Weck (1983), “Estimating the Shadow Economy: A ‘Naive’ Approach”, Oxford Economic Papers, 35(1), 23-44.
  13. Friedman, E. & S. Johnson & D. Kaufmann & P.-L. Zoido-Lobaton (2000), Dodging the Grabbing Hand: the Determinants of Unofficial Activity in 69 Countries”, Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 459-493.
  14. Gokcekus, O. & F. Schneider (2020), “Are Shadow Economy and Corruption in US States Substitutive or Complementary? An Empirical Investigation”, Sosyoekonomi, 28(46), 11-23. González-Fernández, M. & C. González-Velasco (2014), Do the Shadow Economy and Corruption Influence the Sovereign Debt? The Case of the Spanish Regions,, 06.4.2020.
  15. Gujarati, D.N. & D. Porter (2012),
  16. Temel Ekonometri, Ü. Şenesen & G. Günlük-Şenesen (çev.), Literatür Yayıncılık. Gupta, S. & H. Davoodi & R. Alonso-Terme (1998), “Does Corruption Affect Income Inequality and Poverty?”, IMF Working Paper,, 15.04.2020.
  17. Hansen, B.E. (1999), “Threshold Effects in Non-dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference”, Journal of Econometrics, 93, 345-368.
  18. Helberger, C. & H. Knepel (1988), “How Big is the Shadow Economy?: A Re-analysis of the Unobserved-variable Approach of