SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 62

SUPPLY AND DEMAND SIDE DETERMINANTS OF SOCIAL SPENDING: THE CASE OF OECD COUNTRIES

SOSYAL HARCAMALARIN ARZ VE TALEP YÖNLÜ BELİRLEYİCİLERİ: OECD ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

İrem ÇETİNKAYA
Pages
79–92
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

In the study, it was found out that demand -side factors were more important on social spending in the OECD countries, and in this context, especially an increase in the ratio of the old-age population and unemployment lead to increases in social spending.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, supply and demand-side determinants of social spending in the OECD countries were investigated by using panel data analysis between the years 1990 and 2014.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the study, it was found out that demand -side factors were more important on social spending in the OECD countries, and in this context, especially an increase in the ratio of the old-age population and unemployment lead to increases in social spending.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When the results of the study were evaluated in terms of supply-side determinants of social spending, it was concluded that fiscal illusion and decicit illusion were significant in explaining the level of social spending although their effect was lower compared to demand -side determinants.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, supply and demand-side determinants of social spending in the OECD countries were investigated by using panel data analysis between the years 1990 and 2014. While demand-side determinants of social spending cause politicians to change the levels of social spending by leading to changes in the demands and needs of the society, supply-side determinants of social spending are shaped based on the view that politicians determine the level of social spending to maximize their benefits. In the study, it was found out that demand -side factors were more important on social spending in the OECD countries, and in this context, especially an increase in the ratio of the old-age population and unemployment lead to increases in social spending. When the results of the study were evaluated in terms of supply-side determinants of social spending, it was concluded that fiscal illusion and decicit illusion were significant in explaining the level of social spending although their effect was lower compared to demand -side determinants.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, OECD ülkelerinde sosyal harcamaların arz ve talep yönlü belirleyicileri, 1990-2014 yılları için panelveri analizi kullanılarak araştırılmıştır. Sosyal harcamaların talep yönlü belirleyicileri, toplumun istek veihtiyaçlarında değişikliğe yol açarak politikacıların sosyal harcama düzeylerini değiştirmelerine neden olurken; sosyalharcamaların arz yönlü belirleyicileri ise, politikacıların kendi faydalarını maksimize etmek için sosyal harcamalarındüzeyini belirledikleri görüşü çerçevesinde şekillenmektedir. Çalışmada, OECD ülkelerinde, sosyal harcamala rüzerinde, talep yönlü faktörlerin daha etkili olduğu, bu çerçevede özellikle yaşlı nüfus ve işsizlik oranı artışının sosyalharcama artışı ile sonuçlandığı bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları sosyal harcamaların arz yönlübelirleyicileri açısından değerlendirildiğinde ise, etkisi talep yönlü belirleyicilere göre daha düşük olmakla birlikte ,mali illüzyon ve açık illüzyonunun sosyal harcama seviyesini açıklamada anlamlı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇETİNKAYA, İ. (2022). SUPPLY AND DEMAND SIDE DETERMINANTS OF SOCIAL SPENDING: THE CASE OF OECD COUNTRIES. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 62, 79–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/492555

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Arellano, M. (2003). Panel data econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1995). The political economy of budget deficit. International Monetary Fund, 42(1), 1-31.
  3. Avelino, G., Brown, D. Hunter, & Wendy, H. (2005). The effects of capital mobility, trade openness, and democracy on social spending in Latin America, 1980–1999. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3),625–641.
  4. Bernhard, K., & Obinger, H. (2003). Political parties, institutions, and the dynamics of social expenditure in times of austerity. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(1), 20-45.
  5. Bretschger, L., & Hettich, F. (2002). Globalization, capital mobility and tax competition: theory and evidence for OECD countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 18(4), 695– 716. Buchanan, J. M., & Wagner, R. E. (1977). Democracy in deficit: the political legacy of lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press.
  6. Burocom, P. (2007). The determinants and distributional effects of public education, health, and welfare spending in Thailand. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 38(3),113-142.
  7. Cameron, D. R. (1978). The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis. The American Political Science Review, 72(4),1243-1261.
  8. Drazen, A. (2000). Political economy in macroeconomics. New Jersey: Princeton Univers it y Press.
  9. Erdoğdu, M. M. (2013). Sosyal harcamaların kapsamı ve Türkiye’de sosyal bütçe. A. Kesik, M. Şeker & F. Altuğ (Ed.), Kamu Bütçesinde Yeni Yaklaşımlar içinde (ss. 53-95). Ankara:
  10. Seçkin Yayıncılık. Freedom House. (2018). Freedom in the world comparative and historical data. Erişim Adresi: https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world, Erişim Tarihi:01.11.2018.
  11. Garret, G. & Mitchell, D. (2001). Globalization, government spending and taxation in the OECD. European Journal of Political Research, 39(2), 145–177.
  12. Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. (2004). Revising social contracts: social spending in Latın America, East Asia, and the former socialist countries. Revısta De Cıencıa Polítıca, 24(1), 3-37.
  13. Hicks, A., & Swank, D. (1992). Politics, institutions and welfare spending in industrialized democracies. American Political Science Review, 86(3), 658–674.
  14. Huber, E., Ragin, C., & Stephens, J. (1993). Social democracy, constitutional structure and the welfare state. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 711–749.
  15. Kaufman, R. R., & Segura-Ubiergo, A. (2001). Globalization, domestic politics, and social spending in Latin America. World Politics, 53(4), 553–587.
  16. Lindert, P