SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2

Crowding-Out Hipotezine Karşı Rikardocu Denklik Önerisi: Literatürden Deliller

Crowding-Out Hypothesis Versus Ricardian Equıvalence Proposition: Evidence From Literature

Erdal GÜMÜŞ
Pages
21–35
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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 purpose of this paper is to survey the two most important approaches, "crowding out hypothesis" and "Ricardian Equivalence proposition", in the literature, and evaluate the economic consequences of public borrowing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The size of government expenditure in an economy grows over time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Given that tax revenues are not sufficient for such spending and levying new taxes and/or increasing current tax rates are not politically desirable, the only option left is to borrow.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The purpose of this paper is to survey the two most important approaches, "crowding out hypothesis" and "Ricardian Equivalence proposition", in the literature, and evaluate the economic consequences of public borrowing.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The size of government expenditure in an economy grows over time. To finance these expenditures, public incomes must grow as well. Given that tax revenues are not sufficient for such spending and levying new taxes and/or increasing current tax rates are not politically desirable, the only option left is to borrow. The purpose of this paper is to survey the two most important approaches, "crowding out hypothesis" and "Ricardian Equivalence proposition", in the literature, and evaluate the economic consequences of public borrowing.

Özet

Bir ekonomide devlet harcamalarının hacmi zaman içerisinde giderek artmaktadır. Söz konusu harcamaları finanse etmek için kamu gelirlerinin de artmasi gerekmektedir. Vergi gelirlerinin harcamaları karşilamada yetersiz kalması, yeni vergiler koymak ve/veya mevcut vergi oranlarını arttırmak ise politik olarak arzulanmadığı göz önünde tutulduğunda borçlanmak yegane seçenek olarak kalmaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı, zikredilen konuda "crowding out hipotezi" ile "Ricardian equivalence proposition" (Rikardocu denklik önerisi) olarak literatürde yer alan önemli iki yaklaşımın literatür çalişması yapılarak kamu borçlanmasının bu bağlamda ekonomik sonuçlarını değerlendirmektir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜMÜŞ, E. (2022). Crowding-Out Hipotezine Karşı Rikardocu Denklik Önerisi: Literatürden Deliller. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 21–35. https://ajindex.com/articles/506172

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Barro, R. (1974).
  2. Are Government Bonds Net Wealth, Journal of Political Economy, 82, 1095-1117.
  3. Bernheim, B. D. (1987). Ricardian Equivalence: An Evaluation of Theory and Evidence, in S. Fisher (ed.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1987 (263-304), Cambridge: MIT Press.
  4. Boskin, Michael J. (1987).
  5. Deficits, Public Debt, Interest Rates and Private Saving: Perspectives and Reflections on Recent Analyses and on U S Experience, Edited by Michael J. Boskin at al. Private Saving and Public Debt, Basil Blackwell. Bradley, M. D. (1986). Government Spending or Deficit Financing: Which Causes Crowding Out? Journal of Economics and Business, 38, 203-214.
  6. Buchanan, J. M. (1976). Barro On the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem, Journal of Political Economy, 84,337-342.
  7. Buiter, Wilem H. (1990). Principles of Budgetary and Financial policy, The MIT press, Cambridge. Canto, V. A., and Rapp, D. (1982). The "Crowding Out" Controversy: Arguments and Evidence, Economic review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 33-37.
  8. Dwyer, D. P. (1982).
  9. Inflation and Government Deficits, Economic Inquiry, 20, 315-329.
  10. Evans, P. (1988). Are Consumers Ricardian? Evidence for the United States, Journal of Political Economy, 96, 983-1004.
  11. Feldstein, M. S., and Eckstein, O. (1970). The Fundamental Determinants of the Interest Rate, Review of Economics and Statistics, 363-375.
  12. Gochoco, M. S. (1990). Financing Decisions and the 'Crowding Out' effect the Case of the Philippines, Economics letters, 32, 331-333.
  13. Gupta, K. L. (1992). Ricardian Equivalence and Crowding Out in Asia, Applied Economics, 24, 19-25.
  14. Haque, N. (1988). Fiscal Policy and Private Saving Behavior in Developing Countries, International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 35, 316-335.
  15. Haug, A. A. (1990).
  16. Ricardian Equivalence, Rational Expectations, and the Permanent Income Hypothesis, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 22, 305-326.
  17. King, David T. (1984).
  18. Deficits, Borrowing and Crowding Out. NPA Report # 206, Washington D.C. Makin, J. H. (1983).
  19. Real interest, Money surprises, Anticipated Inflation and Fiscal Deficits, Review of Economics and Statistics, 374-384.
  20. PIosser, C. I. (1982). Government Financing decisions and Asset Returns, Journal of Monetary Economics, 325-352.
  21. Ricciuti, Roberto (2003).
  22. Assesing Ricardian Equivalence, Journal of Economic Surveys, 17, 55-78.
  23. Seater, John J. (1993).
  24. Ricardian Equivalence, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. XXXI, March, 142-190.
  25. Weintraub, R. (1978). Congressional Supervision of Monetary policy, Journa