SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kırklareli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

OPENNESS AND PUBLIC EXPENDITURES: A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS FOR OECD COUNTRIES

DIŞA AÇILMA VE KAMU HARCAMALARI: OECD ÜLKELERİ İÇİN PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Caner DEMİR
Pages
80–96
Publication Date
2019-07-02
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)

The findings obtained from the CCE-MG and AMG estimation results reveal that openness has negative effect on government expenditures.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between openness and government expenditures in the post-1980 era.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, a panel cointegration analysis covering 28 OECD countries for the 1980-2016 period has been made.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings obtained from the CCE-MG and AMG estimation results reveal that openness has negative effect on government expenditures.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kamu Harcamaları · Dışa Açıklık · OECD

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between openness and government expenditures in the post-1980 era. For this purpose, a panel cointegration analysis covering 28 OECD countries for the 1980-2016 period has been made. Since, the sample contains cross-sectional dependency problem, the stationarity of the variables is tested via the CIPS unit root test of Pesaran (2007) and the cointegration is tested via the Westerlund (2007) Error-correction-based cointegration test. The findings obtained from the CCE-MG and AMG estimation results reveal that openness has negative effect on government expenditures.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1980-sonrası dönemde dışa açılma ve kamu harcamaları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Bu amaçla, 1980-2016 dönemi için 28 OECD ülkesini kapsayan bir panel eşbütünleşme analizi yapılmıştır. Örneklemin yatay-kesit bağımlılığı sorunu içermesi nedeniyle değişkenlerin durağanlıkları Pesaran (2007) tarafından geliştirilen CIPS birim kök testiyle, eşbütünleşik olup olmadıkları ise Westerlund (2007) Hata-düzeltmeye-dayanan eşbütünleşme testiyle sınanmıştır. CCE-MG ve AMG tahmin sonuçlarından elde edilen bulgular, dışa açılmanın kamu harcamaları üzerinde negatif etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİR, C. (2019). OPENNESS AND PUBLIC EXPENDITURES: A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS FOR OECD COUNTRIES. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 80–96. https://ajindex.com/articles/417359

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Aktan, C. C., Dileyici, D. ve Özen, A., (2006), “Geleneksel Maliye ve Yeni Maliye”, Kamu Maliyesinde Çağdaş Yaklaşımlar, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  2. Alesina, A. ve Wacziarg, R., (1998), “Openness, country size and government”, Journal of Public Economics, 69, 305–321.
  3. Bai, J. ve Ng, S., (2001), “A PANIC Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration”, Mimeo, Boston College, Department of Economics. Balle, F., & Vaidya, A. (2002). A regional analysis of openness and government size. Applied Economics Letters, 9(5), 289-292.
  4. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q., ve Kao, C. (2012). “A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model”, Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 164-177.
  5. Bond, S. ve Eberhardt, M., (2009). “Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator”, paper presented at the Nordic Econometrics Conference in Lund. Breusch, T.S. ve Pagan, A.R. (1980), "The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Spesification in Econometrics", The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
  6. Choi, I., (2001), “Unit root tests for panel data”, Journal of International Money and Banking, 20, 249–272.
  7. Choi, I., (2002), “Combination Unit Root Tests for Cross-Sectionally Correlated Panels”, Mimeo, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Danışoğlu, A. Ç., (2004), “Küreselleşmenin Gelir Eşitsizliği ve Yoksulluk Üzerindeki Etkileri”, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Dergisi, 3(6), 35-59.
  8. Eberhardt, M. ve Teal, F., (2010), “Productivity Analysis in Global Manufacturing Production”, Economics Series Working Papers 515, University of Oxford, Department of Economics. Égert, B., (2015), “Public debt, economic growth and nonlinear effects: Myth or reality?”, Journal of Macroeconomics, 43, 226-238.
  9. Friedman, T., (2006), “Dünya Düzdür”, Boyner Yayınları,
  10. İstanbul.
  11. Garen, J. ve Trask, K., (2005)., “Do more open economies have bigger governments? Another look”, Journal of development economics, 77(2), 533-551.
  12. Garrett, G. ve Mitchell, D., (2001), “Globalization, government spending and taxation in the OECD”, European Journal of Political Research, 39, 145–177.
  13. Hadri, K., (2000), “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panel Data”, Econometrics Journal, 3, 148-161.
  14. Harris, R.D.F. ve Tzavalis, E., (1999), “Inference for Unit Roots in Dynamic Panels where the Time Dimension is Fixed”, Journal of Econometrics, 91, 201-226.
  15. Herndon, T., Ash, M. ve Pollin, R, (2014), “Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth?