SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi / 2019 / Sayı: 24

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXCISE TAXES REVENUES AND BUDGET DEFICITS IN OECD COUNTRIES: 1999-2016

Serdar ÖZTÜRK
Alper aykut EKİNCİ
Pages
269–286
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)

According to the results of the bootstrap panel causality, a significant relationship between excise tax revenue and budget deficit in OECD member countries exists.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between budget deficits and excise taxes revenues in OECD countries for 1999-2016 period.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the study, the bootstrap panel causality technique proposed by Kónya (2006), which considers cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity across the countries was performed for 32 OECD member countries (Chile, Japan, Lithuania and Mexico are not included due to lack of data) yearly data of the 1999-2016 period.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the bootstrap panel causality, a significant relationship between excise tax revenue and budget deficit in OECD member countries exists.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Excise Tax · Budget Deficit

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between budget deficits and excise taxes revenues in OECD countries for 1999-2016 period. In the study, the bootstrap panel causality technique proposed by Kónya (2006), which considers cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity across the countries was performed for 32 OECD member countries (Chile, Japan, Lithuania and Mexico are not included due to lack of data) yearly data of the 1999-2016 period. According to the results of the bootstrap panel causality, a significant relationship between excise tax revenue and budget deficit in OECD member countries exists. Governments due to its ease of application and general acceptance prefer excise taxes. Thus, the results can be interpreted that excise taxes are used as a revenue-increasing resource to decrease the budget deficit or to prevent increase in the budget deficit.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1999-2016 yılları için OECD ülkelerinde bütçe açıkları ile özel tüketim vergisi gelirleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Çalışmada, 1999-2016 dönemine ait yıllık verilerle 32 OECD üyesi ülke (Şili, Japonya, Litvanya ve Meksika veri eksikliğine dâhil edilmemiştir) için Bootstrap Panel Granger nedensellik analizi yapılmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, OECD üyesi ülkelerde bütçe açıkları ve özel tüketim vergisi gelirleri arasında Granger nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu ortaya koyulmuştur. Özel tüketim vergisi uygulamaları, uygulama kolaylığı ve genel kabulü nedeniyle hükümetler tarafından tercih edilmektedir. Dolayısıyla, sonuçlar, özel tüketim vergilerinin bütçe açığını azaltmak veya bütçe açığındaki artışı önlemek için gelir artırıcı bir kaynak olarak kullanıldığı şeklinde yorumlanabilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZTÜRK, S., EKİNCİ, A. A. (2019). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXCISE TAXES REVENUES AND BUDGET DEFICITS IN OECD COUNTRIES: 1999-2016. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, Sayı: 24, 269–286. https://ajindex.com/articles/322347

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Abizadeh, S., Benarroch, M., and Yousefi, M. (1996). A multilevel government model of deficits and inflation. Atlantic Economic Journal, 24(2), 118-130.
  2. Altinok, S. (2007). Avrupa Birliği ile İlişkiler Çerçevesinde Özel Tüketim Vergisi Uygulaması ve Türkiye Örneği (Unpublished Master Thesis). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi,
  3. Isparta. Anderson, L. (1961). The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly,41(4), 467-469. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42866601
  4. Asteriou, D., and Hall, S.G. (2007). Applied Econometrics: A Modern Approach Using Eviews and Microfit Revisited Edition, Newyork: Palgrave Macmillan. Baltagi, B.H. (2011).
  5. Econometrics, Fifth Edition. New York: Springer. Batırel, Ö. F. (2008). Global Ekonomik Kriz ve Türk Kamu Maliyesi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13. Bird, R. M. (2015). Tobacco and alcohol excise taxes for improving public health and revenue outcomes: marrying sin and virtle?, The World Bank. Blanchard, O.J., and Fischer S. (1989). Lectures on Macroeconomics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  6. Bohn, H. (1991). Budget balance through revenue or spending adjustments? Journal of Monetary Economics, 27, 333-359.
  7. Brezis, M., and Marans, R. (2010). Do People Support Sin Taxes? A Population Survey of Attitudes. World Medical and Health Policy, 2 (4). Cooper, A., and Witt, D. (2012). The linkage between tax burden and illicit trade of excisable products: the example of tobacco. World Customs Journal, 6(2), 41-58.
  8. Corsetti, C., and Roubini N. (1997). Politically Motivated Fiscal Deficit: Policy Issues in Closed and Open Economy. Economic and Politics, 9(1), 27-54.
  9. Crooks, E. (1989).
  10. Alcohol Consumption and Taxation, London: Institute for Fiscal Studies. Dickey, D.A., and Fuller, W.A., (1979). Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with A Unit Root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427–431.
  11. Dikmen, N. (2012). Ekonometri Temel Kavramlar ve Uygulamalar.Bursa: Dora Yayınları.
  12. Edizdoğan, N., and Çelikkaya, A. (2010). Vergilerin ekonomik analizi. Bursa: Dora Yayıncılık. Ekey, A. (1998). Kamu Maliyesi. İzmir:
  13. Anadolu Matbaacılık. Friedman, M. (1978). The Limitations of Tax Limitation. Policy Review, Summer,7-14.
  14. Gujarati, D.N. (2004).
  15. Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition. New York: The McGraw-Hill. Günal, M. (2007).
  16. Parasal Gelişmeler, Merkez Bankası ve Para Politikası Uygulamaları. Edit. Ahmet Ay, in Türkiye Ekonomisi, Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi.
  17. Haris, J. (2000). Basic Principles of Sustainab