KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2

The Impact of Economic Size of Government on Income Distribution: Evidence from OECD Countries

Turgay Ceyhan(MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Ahmet Köstekçi(FIRAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Abdullah Göv
Sayfa
655–676
Yayın Tarihi
2021-06-29
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Findings of the panel causality test show unidirectional causality from taxes and expenditures to Gini.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In this study, the relationship between taxes and public expenditures, that show the governmentˈs economic size and income distribution, is analyzed.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In the study covering the period 2000-2017 for 24 OECD countries, the Two-Step System Generalized Method of Moments and the bootstrap version of Dumitrescu-Hurlin (2012) panel causality test were used.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Findings of the panel causality test show unidirectional causality from taxes and expenditures to Gini.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2000-2017 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Economic Size of the Government · Income Distribution · OECD Countries

Özet

In this study, the relationship between taxes and public expenditures, that show the governmentˈs economic size and income distribution, is analyzed. In the study covering the period 2000-2017 for 24 OECD countries, the Two-Step System Generalized Method of Moments and the bootstrap version of Dumitrescu-Hurlin (2012) panel causality test were used. According to the results of the Two-Step System Generalized Method of Moments, the expansion in the governmentˈs economic size increases the inequality. Findings of the panel causality test show unidirectional causality from taxes and expenditures to Gini.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ceyhan, T., Köstekçi, A., Göv, A. (2021). The Impact of Economic Size of Government on Income Distribution: Evidence from OECD Countries. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2, 655–676. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.959294

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (45)

  1. Afonso, A., Schuknecht, L. & Tanzi, V. (2008). Income distribution determinants and public spending efficiency. ECB Working Paper, No:861. Access address: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1083986
  2. Aktan, C.C. & Vural, İ. Y. (2002). Makro-ekonomik politikalar, gelir dağılımı ve yoksulluk [Macroeconomic policies, income distribution and poverty]. Yoksullukla Mücadele Stratejileri, C.C. Aktan (Ed.), Ankara: Hak-İş Konfederasyonu Yayınları:1-31. Access address: http://www.canaktan.org/ekonomi/yoksulluk/birinci-bol/aktan-vural-makro-ekonomi.pdf
  3. Alonso-Borrego, C. & Arellano, M. (1996). Symmetrically normalised instrumental-variable estimation using panel data. CEMFI Working Paper, No:9612. Access address: https://www.cemfi.es/research/publications/index.asp
  4. Anderson, E., d'Orey, M.A.J, Duvendack, M. & Esposito, L. (2018). Does government spending affect income poverty? A meta-regression analysis. World Development, 103, 60-71. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.006.
  5. Arellano, M. & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297. doi: 10.2307/2297968
  6. Arellano, M. & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D
  7. Blundell, R. & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115-143. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8
  8. Blundell, R. & Bond, S. (2000). GMM estimation with persistent panel data: An application to production functions. Econometric Reviews, 19(3), 321-340. doi: 10.1080/07474930008800475
  9. Callan, T., Doorley, K. & Savage, M. (2018). Inequality in EU crisis countries: How effective were automatic stabilisers? IZA Discussion Paper, No:11439. Access address: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/180457
  10. Demir, M. & Geyik, O. (2019). Evaluation of the impact of globalization on health expenditures in terms of public finance. D. Demirdizen Çevik & O. Geyik (Ed.), in Contemporary Issues in Labor, Public Finance & Administration (p.59-70), London: IJOPEC Publication.
  11. Dickey, D.A. & Fuller, W.A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427-431. doi: 10.2307/2286348
  12. Doerrenberg, P. & Peichl, A. (2014). The impact of redistributive policies on inequality in OECD countries. Applied Economics, 46(17), 2066-2086. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2014.892202
  13. Dotti, V. (2020). Income inequality, size of government, and tax progressivity: A positive theory. European Economic Review, 121, 1-26. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.103327
  14. Dumitrescu, E.I. & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for granger noncausality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
  15. Ersezer, D. (2006). Gelir dağılımı politikası ve araçları [Income distribution policy and its tools]. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 255-268. Access address: http://web.firat.edu.tr/sosyalbil/dergi/arsiv/cilt16/sayi1/255-268.pdf
  16. FredrickSolt (2020). FredrickSolt income inequality statistics. Access address: https://fsolt.org/swiid/swiid_source/
  17. Guzi, M. & Kahanec, M. (2018). Income inequality and the size of government: A causal analysis. IZA Discussion Paper, No:12015. Access address: http://ftp.iza.org/dp12015.pdf
  18. Hausman, J.A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271. doi: 10.2307/1913827
  19. Im, K.S., Lee, J. & Tieslau, M. (2010). Panel LM unit root tests with trend shifts. FDIC Center for Financial Research Working Paper, No:2010-1. Access address: https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/cfr/2010/wp2010/2010-01.pdf
  20. Im, K.S., Pesaran, H. & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
  21. İlgün, M.F. (2015). Kamu sosyal harcamalarının gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkisi: OECD ülkelerine yönelik panel veri analizi [The impact of public social expenditures on income distribution: Panel data analysis for OECD countries]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(4), 493-516. doi:10.16953/deusbed.80724
  22. Kahanec, M. & Zimmermann, K.F. (2008). International migration, ethnicity, and economic inequality. IZA Discussion Paper, No:3450. Access address: http://ftp.iza.org/dp3450.pdf
  23. Kanca, O.C. & Bayrak, M. (2014). Kamu kesiminin ekonomik büyüklüğüne Türkiye ve OECD ülkeleri açısından bir bakış [A glance of the economic size of the public sector in terms of Turkey and OECD countries]. Sayıştay Dergisi, 95, 29-48. Access address: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1713880
  24. Karataş, M. (2019). Gelir dağılımının teorik yapısı [Theoretical structure of income distribution]. Hak-İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 8(21), 52-79. doi:10.31199/hakisderg.546147
  25. Kaya, İ.G. (2014). Türkiye’de kamu sektörünün optimal büyüklüğü [The optimal size of the public sector in Turkey]. Maliye ve Finans Yazıları, 28(101), 132-157. Access address: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mfy/issue/16279
  26. Koç, A. & Gürsoy, S. (2020). Amerikan Merkez Bankası FED’in para politikası araçları ve bağımsızlığı [American Central Bank FEDˈs monetary policy tools and independence]. Econder International Academic Journal, 4(2), 421-447. doi:10.35342/econder.665074
  27. Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. (2009). LM unit root tests with trend breaks at unknown dates. Mimeo.
  28. Lindert, P. (1996). What limits social spending? Explorations in Economic History, 33(1), 1-34. doi:10.1006/exeh.1996.0001
  29. Luo, W., Pickering, A. & Monterio, P.S. (2017). Inequality and the size of government. University of York Discussion Papers in Economics, No:17/02. Access address: https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/yoryorken/17_2f02.htm
  30. Martinez-Vazquez, J., Moreno-Dodson, B. & Vulovic, V. (2012). The impact of tax and expenditure policies on income distribution: Evidence from a large panel of countries. Georgia State University International Center for Public Policy Working Paper, No:12-25. Access address: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://scholar.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1073&context=icepp
  31. Meltzer, A.H. & Richard, S.F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914-927. doi:10.1086/261013
  32. Meltzer, A.H. & Richard, S.F. (1983). Tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Public Choice, 41(3), 403-418. doi:10.1007/BF00141072
  33. Milanovic, B. (2000). The median-voter hypothesis, income inequality, and income redistribution: An empirical test with the required data. European Journal of Political Economy, 16(3), 367-410. doi:10.1016/S0176-2680(00)00014-8
  34. OECD (2020). OECD statistics. Access address: https://stats.oecd.org/
  35. Pesaran, M.H. (2007). A simple panel unitroot test in the presence of cross section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. doi:10.1002/jae.951
  36. Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A. & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. doi:10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
  37. Roine, J., Vlachos, J. & Waldenström, D. (2009). The long-run determinants of inequality: What can we learn from top income data? Journal of Public Economics, 93(7–8), 974–988. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.04.003
  38. Sargan, J.D. (1958). The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica, 26(3), 393-415. doi:10.2307/1907619
  39. Sargan, J.D. (1988). Testing for misspecification after estimating using instrumental variables. E. Maasoumi (Ed.), in Contributions to Econometrics, England: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Teyyare, E. & Sayaner, K. (2018). Türkiye’de gelir eşitsizliğinin maliye politikası araçları ve kurumsal faktörler açısından analizi ve çözüm önerileri [Analysis of income inequality in terms of fiscal policy tools and institutional factors in Turkey and solution offers]. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(16), 309-334. doi:10.29029/busbed.454029
  41. Tuğcu, C.T. (2018). Panel data analysis in the energy-growth nexus (EGN). A.N. Menegaki (Ed.), in The Economics and Econometrics of the Energy-Growth Nexus (p.255-271), England: Cambridge Academic Press.
  42. Ürper, T. (2018). Kamu harcamalarının gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye örneği [The impact of public expenditures on income distribution: The case of Turkey]. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  43. Wu, D. (1974). Alternative tests of independence between stochastic regressors and disturbances: Finite sample results. Econometrica, 42(3), 529-546. doi:10.2307/1911789
  44. Young Chu, K., Davoodi, H. & Gupta, S. (2000). Income distribution and tax and government social spending policies in developing countries. IMF Working Paper, No:00/62. doi:10.5089/9781451848281.001
  45. Yumuşak, İ.G. & Bilen, M. (2000). Gelir dağılımı-beşeri sermaye ilişkisi ve Türkiye üzerine bir değerlendirme [Income distribution-human capital nexus and an evaluation on Turkey]. K.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 77-87. Access address: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23747501