SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1

Estimations of empirical fiscal rules with constant and time varying parameters for Turkey

Türkiye için sabit ve zaman değişken katsayılı ampirik mali kural tahminleri

Taner TURAN
Erdinç TELATAR
Pages
225–248
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)

Regarding thegeneral election years (1991, 1999 and 2002), our findings suggest thatsignificant reductions experienced in the reactions of the primary surplus to debtstock in related periods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines Turkish fiscal policy for the period over 1987-2007 byestimating fiscal rules.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Compared to previousperiods, primary surpluses in 2000s, during this period implicit fiscal rules wereprevalent, generally have become more countercyclical and reacted morestrongly to debt stock.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Regarding thegeneral election years (1991, 1999 and 2002), our findings suggest thatsignificant reductions experienced in the reactions of the primary surplus to debtstock in related periods.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study examines Turkish fiscal policy for the period over 1987-2007 byestimating fiscal rules. During this period, Turkey has experienced frequentgovernment changes, several economic shocks and crisis. Both models withconstant parameters and with time varying parameters are employed. Our empirical results clearly indicate that fiscal policy in Turkey ought to beanalyzed by using models with time varying parameters. Compared to previousperiods, primary surpluses in 2000s, during this period implicit fiscal rules wereprevalent, generally have become more countercyclical and reacted morestrongly to debt stock. It seems that very important changes in fiscal policyexperienced after the crisis took place in 1994, 1999 and 2001. Regarding thegeneral election years (1991, 1999 and 2002), our findings suggest thatsignificant reductions experienced in the reactions of the primary surplus to debtstock in related periods.

Özet

Bu çalışmada sık hükümet değişikliklerinin, ekonomik şokların ve krizlerinyaşandığı 1987-2007 döneminde Türkiyede maliye politikası ampirik malikurallar tahmin edilerek incelenmektedir. Hem sabit hem de zaman değişkenkatsayılı modeller kullanılmaktadır. Ampirik sonuçlarımız Türkiyede maliyepolitikasının sabit katsayılı değil, zaman değişken katsayılı modeller kullanılarakdaha iyi analiz edilebileceğini açık bir şekilde göstermektedir. Örtük mali kuraluygulamalarının ağırlık kazandığı 2000li yıllarda birincil fazlanın, öncekidönemlere nazaran, genelde daha konjonktür karşıtı bir nitelik taşıdığı, borçstokuna daha fazla tepki verdiği anlaşılmaktadır. Ayrıca, 1994, 1999 ve 2001yıllarında yaşanan krizlerin ardından maliye politikasında önemli değişikliklerolduğu bulunmuştur. Bulgularımız özellikle 1991, 1999 ve 2002 yıllarındakigenel seçim dönemlerinde, birincil fazlanın borç stokuna tepkisinde belirgin birzayıflama veya düşme olduğuna işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TURAN, T., TELATAR, E. (2022). Estimations of empirical fiscal rules with constant and time varying parameters for Turkey. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1, 225–248. https://ajindex.com/articles/533106

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Badinger, H. (2009) “Fiscal Rules, Discretionary Fiscal Policy and Macroeconomic Stability: An Empirical Assessment for OECD Countries”, Applied Economics, 41(7), 829-847.
  2. Ballabriga, F., C. Martinez-Mongay (2002) “Has EMU Shifted Policy?”, European Commision Economic Papers, No: 166. Bohn, H. (1998) “The Behavior of US Public Debt and Deficits”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), 949-963.
  3. Buchanan, J.M., R.E. Wagner (1977) Democracy in Deficit The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes, New York: Academic Press.
  4. Buiter, W.H. (2003) “Ten Commendments for a Fiscal Rule in the E(M)U”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(1), 84-99.
  5. Canaktan, C.C. (2010) “Mali Kurallar (Ekonomi Politikası Yönetiminde Anayasal ve Yasal Mali Kurallar),” içinde C.C. Aktan, A. Kesik ve F. Kaya (ed.), Mali Kurallar Maliye Politikasında Yeni Bir Eğilim: Vergi, Harcama, Borçlanma vs. Üzerine Kurallar ve Sınırlamalar, Ankara: T.C. Maliye Bakanlığı SGB Yayın No: 2010/408, 84-97.
  6. Candelon, B., J. Muysenk, R. Vermeulen (2009) “Fiscal Policy and Monetary Integration in Europe: An Update”, Oxford Economic Papers, 62(2), 323- 349. Cimadomo, J., J. Garnier, C. Schalck (2007) “Time Varying Fiscal Policy Rules for Five OECD Countries”, Mimeo. Claeys, P. (2008) ”Rules, and Their Effects on Fiscal Policy in Sweden”, Swedish Economic Policy Review, 15, 7-47.
  7. Debrun, X., N. Epstein, S. Symansky (2008) “A New Fiscal Rule: Should Israel Go Swiss?”, IMF Working Paper WP/08/87. De Mello, L. (2008) “Estimating a Fiscal Reaction Function: The Case of Debt Sustainability in Brazil”, Applied Economics, 40(3), 271-284.
  8. Enders, W. (2004) Applied Econometric Time Series (2nd ed.), MA: John Wiley&Sons Inc. European Commision (2004) “Public Finances in EMU”, European Economy No: 3/2004.
  9. European Commision (2006) “Public Finances in EMU”, European Economy No: 3/2006.
  10. Fatas, A., I. Mihov (2003) “On Constraining Fiscal Policy Discretion in EMU”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(1), 112-131.
  11. Fatas, A., I. Mihov (2009) “The Euro and Fiscal Policy”. NBER Working Paper, No: 14722. Favero, C., T. Monacelli (2005) “Fiscal Policy Rules and Regime (In)Stability: Evidence from the U.S.”, IGIER Working Paper, No: 282. Gali, J., R. Perotti (2003) “Fiscal Policy and Monetary Integration in Europe”, NBER Working Paper, No: 9773. Garcia, A., M.J. Arroyo, R. Minguez, J. Uxo (2009) “Estimation of a Fiscal Policy Rule for EMU Countries (1984-2005)”, Applied Economics, 41(7), 869-884.
  12. Giorno, C., P. Richardson, D. Rosaveare