SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 4

CAUSALITY BETWEEN EXCISE TAX REVENUE AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN OECD COUNTRIES

OECD ÜLKELERİNDE ÖZEL TÜKETİM VERGİ GELİRİ VE DEVLET HARCAMALARI ARASINDAKİ NEDENSELLİK

Alper Aykut EKİNCİ
Pages
721–741
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 bi-directional causality between health spending and excise tax revenue shows that both the increased excise tax revenue is directed towards health spending and excise revenues are used to cover health spending.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between excise taxes revenues and government spending areas in OECD countries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Panel data causality analyzes were performed for 20 OECD member countries using yearly data for the 1995-2016 period to investigate the relationship between government spending in education, health, public services, defense, and social protection areas and excise tax revenues.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The bi-directional causality between health spending and excise tax revenue shows that both the increased excise tax revenue is directed towards health spending and excise revenues are used to cover health spending.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Özel Tüketim Vergisi · Devlet Harcamaları · Nedensellik Analizi

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between excise taxes revenues and government spending areas in OECD countries. Panel data causality analyzes were performed for 20 OECD member countries using yearly data for the 1995-2016 period to investigate the relationship between government spending in education, health, public services, defense, and social protection areas and excise tax revenues. At the end of the analysis, two-way causality relationship between excise tax and defense, education, health, general public services, and social protection spending have been observed. The results support both the spend- tax hypothesis and the tax-spend hypothesis. Furthermore, the tax-spend hypothesis is stronger in social protection spending and the spend-tax hypothesis is stronger in general public spending. Health spending strongly supports two hypotheses. It can be interpreted that the increases in defense, education, and general public services spending in the economies of OECD countries are financed by an increase in excise tax revenues. The bi-directional causality between health spending and excise tax revenue shows that both the increased excise tax revenue is directed towards health spending and excise revenues are used to cover health spending.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, OECD ülkelerinde tüketim vergisi gelirleri ile devlet harcama alanları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Devletin eğitim harcamaları, sağlık, kamu hizmetleri, savunma ve sosyal koruma ile tüketim vergisi gelirleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek üzere, 20 OECD üyesi ülke için 1995-2016 dönemine ait yıllık veriler ile panel veri nedensellik analizi yapılmıştır. Analizin sonunda, tüketim vergisi ile savunma, eğitim, sağlık, genel kamu hizmetleri ve sosyal koruma harcamaları arasında iki yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi saptanmıştır. Sonuçlar, hem harcama vergi geliri hipotezini hem de vergi geliri-harcama hipotezini desteklemektedir. Ayrıca, vergi geliri- harcama hipotezi, sosyal koruma harcamalarında daha güçlü iken genel kamu harcamalarında ise harcama-vergi hipotezi daha güçlüdür. Sağlık harcamaları iki hipotezi kuvvetle desteklemektedir. Savunma, eğitim ve genel kamu hizmetlerinde OECD ülkelerinde harcamaların artmasının, tüketim vergisi gelirlerindeki artışla finanse edildiği çıkarımında bulunulabilir. Sağlık harcaması ve tüketim vergisi geliri arasındaki iki yönlü nedensellik, artan tüketim vergisi gelirinin sağlık harcamalarına yönelik olduğunu ve tüketim harcamalarının sağlık harcamalarını karşılamak için kullanıldığını göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

EKİNCİ, A. A. (2022). CAUSALITY BETWEEN EXCISE TAX REVENUE AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN OECD COUNTRIES. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 4, 721–741. https://ajindex.com/articles/532939

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Akçağlayan, A., M. Kayiran (2010), “Türkiye’de Kamu Harcamaları ve Gelirleri: Nedensellik İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(2), 129-146.
  2. Akçoraoğlu, A. (1999),”
  3. Kamu Harcamaları, Kamu Gelirleri ve Keynesçi Politikalar: Bir Nedensellik Analizi”, Gazi Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 1(2). Anderson, W., M.S. Wallace, J.T. Warner (1985), “Goverment Spending and Taxation: What Causes What?”, Southern Economic Journal, 52(1), 630-639.
  4. Baghestani, H., R. Mcnown (1994), “Do Revenues or Expenditures Respond to Budgetary Disequilibria?”, Southern Economic Journal, 61(2), 311-322.
  5. Baia, J., C. Kaob (2006), “On the Estimation and Inference of a Panel Cointegration Model with Cross-Sectional Dependence”, Panel Data Econometrics Theoretical Contributions and Empirical Applications, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 3-30.
  6. Blackley, P.R. (1986), “Causality between Revenues and Expenditures and the size of the Federal Budget”, Public Finance Quarterly, 14(2), 139-156.
  7. Bohn, H. (1991), “Budget Balance Through Revenue or Spending Adjustments?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 27, 333-359.
  8. Boubtane, E., D. Coulibaly, C. Rault (2013), “Immigration, Unemployment and GDP in The Host Country: Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis on OECD Countries”, Economic Modelling, 33, 261-269.
  9. Buchanan, J.M., R.E. Wagner (1978), “Dialogues Concerning Fiscal Religion”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 4(3), 627-636.
  10. Bulutoğlu, K. (2003),
  11. Kamu Ekonomisine Giriş, İstanbul,
  12. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  13. Çiçek, G.H., İ.S. Yavuz (2014), “Vergi-Harcama Paradoksu: Türkiye’de Belediyeler Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, (4), 17-31.
  14. Darrat, A.F. (2002), “Budget Balance Through Spending Cuts or Tax Adjustments?”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 20(3), 221-233.
  15. Elyasi, Y., M. Rahimi (2012), “The Causality between Government Revenue and Government Expenditure in Iran”, International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research, 5(1), 129-145.
  16. Ewing, B., J. Payne (1998), “Government Revenue-Expenditure Nexus: Evidence from Latin America”, Journal of Economic Development, 23(2), 57-69.
  17. Friedman, M. (1978), “The Limitations of Tax Limitation”, Policy Review, (5), 7. Furstenberg, M.G., J. Green, J.H. Jeong (1986), “Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax?”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(2), 179-188.
  18. Gurdal, T., M. Aydin, V. Inal (2020), “The Relationship between Tax Revenue, Government Expenditure, and Economic Growth