SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Maliye Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 178

The Effect of Public Expenditures on Human Development in OECDCountries:Panel Data Analysis

OECD Ülkelerinde Kamu Harcamalarının İnsani Gelişme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Panel Veri Analizi

Yunus Emre YAYLA
Mahmut Ünsal ŞAŞMAZ
Pages
180–198
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)

According to Kónya (2006) causality test, 4 out of 7 relationships are negative and 3 are positive.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Public expenditures can have many economic and social impacts as they cover various expenditures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the effect of public expenditures on human development in 26 OECD countries in the period of 1995-2017 is investigated by panel data analysis method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to Kónya (2006) causality test, 4 out of 7 relationships are negative and 3 are positive.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Public expenditures can have many economic and social impacts as they cover various expenditures. In this study, the effect of public expenditures on human development in 26 OECD countries in the period of 1995-2017 is investigated by panel data analysis method. In the study, according to Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) test results, one-way causality relationship from human development to public expenditures is determined. On the other hand, according to Kónya (2006) panel bootstrap causality test, the causality relationship is determined in 3 countries from public expenditures to human development and in 4 countries from human development to public expenditures. According to Kónya (2006) causality test, 4 out of 7 relationships are negative and 3 are positive.

Özet

Kamu harcamalar, ülke içerisine yaplan çeúitli harcamalar kapsad÷ için ekonomik ve sosyal anlamda birçok etkilere neden olabilmektedir. Bu çalúmada, 26 OECD ülkesinde 1995-2017 döneminde kamu harcamalarnn insani geliúme üzerindeki etkisi panel veri analizi yöntemiyle araútrlmútr. Çalúmada; Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) test sonuçlarna göre insani geliúmeden kamu harcamalarna do÷ru tek yönlü nedensellik iliúkisi tespit edilmiútir. Di÷er yandan; Kónya (2006) panel bootstrap nedensellik testinin sonucuna göre; kamu harcamalarndan insani geliúmeye do÷ru üç ülkede, insani geliúmeden kamu harcamalarna do÷ru dört ülkede nedensellik iliúkisi belirlenmiútir. Kónya (2006) nedensellik testi sonucuna göre; çkan toplam yedi iliúkinin dördünün negatif yönlü, üçünün ise pozitif yönlü oldu÷u bulunmuútur.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAYLA, Y. E., ŞAŞMAZ, M. Ü. (2022). The Effect of Public Expenditures on Human Development in OECDCountries:Panel Data Analysis. Maliye Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 178, 180–198. https://ajindex.com/articles/577870

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Altner, A. (2019), “OECD Ülkelerinde Kamu Harcamalar ve Ekonomik Büyüme øliúkisi: Panel Simetrik ve Asimetrik Nedensellik Analizi”, Atatürk Üniversitesi øktisadi ve ødari Bilimler Dergisi, 33(3), 849-870.
  2. Altunç, Ö.F. (2011), “Kamu Harcamalar ve Ekonomik Büyüme øliúkisi: Türkiye’ye øliúkin Ampirik Kantlar”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi øktisadi ve ødari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 145-157. Arsoy, ø. (2005), “Türkiye'de Kamu Harcamalar ve Ekonomik Büyüme øliúkisi (1950-2003)” (No. 2005/15), Tartúma Metni, Türkiye Ekonomi Kurumu. Barro, R.J. (1990), “Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 103-125.
  3. Bose, N., Haque, M.E. ve Osborn, D.R. (2007), “Public Expenditure and Economic Growth: A Disaggregated Analysis for Developing Countries”, The Manchester School, 75(5), 533 - 556. Breusch, T.S. ve Pagan A.R. (1980), “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics”, The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
  4. Colm, G. (1936), “Theory of Public Expenditures”, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 183(1), 1-11.
  5. Çelikkaya, S. ve Sezgin, A. (2015), “Kamu Harcamalarnn Kalknmaya Olan Etkileri: Türkiye Örne÷i”, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi øktisadi ve ødari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 40-59. Demir, ø.C. ve Balk, A. (2019), “Türkiye’de Wagner Kanunu’nun Snanmas: 1960-2016 Dönemi Analizi”, Vergi Raporu, 234, 11-27.
  6. Devarajan, S., Swaroop, V. ve Zou, H.F. (1996), “The Composition of Public Expenditure and Economic Growth”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 37(2), 313-344.
  7. Dumitrescu, E.I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012), “Testing for Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels”, Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
  8. Edeme, R.K. (2014), “Analyzing the Effects of Sectoral Public Spending on Human Development in Nigeria: Evidence from Panel Data”, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 19(9), 1-13.
  9. Fan, S. ve Rao, N. (2003), “Public Spending in Developing Countries: Trends, Determination and Impacts”, EPDT Discussion Paper, No.99. Fan, S., Hazell, P. ve Thorat, S. (2000), “Government Spending, Growth and Poverty in Rural India”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(4), 1038-1051.
  10. Granger, C. W. (1969), “Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods”, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 424-438.
  11. Gül, E. ve Yavuz, H. (2011), “Türkiye’de Kam