Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği

İhsan GÜNAYDIN (Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, Maliye Bölümü, Trabzon, Türkiye)
Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi
2 1
Yıl: 2004 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 163 - 181 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği

Öz:
Bu çalışma, hata düzeltme modeli ile Toda-Yamamoto (1995) tarafından geliştirilen arttırılmış VAR modeli kullanılarak Türkiye'de 1987:1-2003:3 döneminde kamu harcamaları, kamu gelirleri, GSMH ve faiz oranlan arasındaki kısa ve uzun dönem ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Sonuçlar dört değişken arasında uzun dönem bir denge ilişkisinin olduğunu ve vergi-harcama teorisini destekleyen hem kısa hem de uzun dönemde kamu gelirlerinden kamu harcamalarına doğru tek yönlü bir nedenselliğin olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar ayrıca gelirlerin harcamalar üzerindeki tek yönlü nedensellik etkisinin Buchanan ve Wagner tarafından hipotezleştirildiği gibi anlamlı bir şekilde negatif olduğunu göstermektedir. Böylece, ' Türkiye'de bütçe açıkları için optimal çözümün vergilerin artırılması olduğu görülmektedir.
Anahtar Kelime: vergi harcama Türkiye

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • AHIAKPOR, J.C.W., AMIRKHALKHALI, S., (1989) On the Difficulty of Eliminating Deficits with Higher Taxes:Some Canadian Evidence, Southern Economic Journal, 56, pp.24-31.
  • AKÇORAOGLU, A. (1999) Kamu Harcamaları, Kamu Gelirleri ve Keynesçi Politikalar: Bir Nedensellik Analizi, G.Ü.İİBFDergisi, 2/99, ss.51-65.
  • ANDERSON, W., WALLACE, M.S. & WARNER, J.T (1985) Goverment Spending and Taxation:What Causes What?, Southern Economic Journal, 52 (1), 630-639.
  • ARGHYROU, G.M. (1998) Causal relationships between public expenditure, public receipts and gross domestic product: Greece 1965-95, Applied Economics Letters, 5, pp.727-731.
  • AWOKUSE, T.O. (2003) Is the Export-Led Growth Hypothesis Valid For Canada? Canadian Journal of Economics, V.36, N.I, pp. 126-136.
  • BAGHESTANI, H., McNOWN, R. (1994) Do Revenues or Expenditures Respond to Budgetary Disequilibria?, Southern Economic Journal, 61 (2), pp. 311-322.
  • BLACKLEY, P.R. (1986) Causality between Revenues and Expenditures and the Size of the Federal Budget, Public Finance Quarterly, 14 (2), pp.139-156.
  • BOHN, H. (1991) Budget balance through revenue or spending adjustments? Journal of Monetary Economics, 27, pp.333-359.
  • BUCHANAN, J., WAGNER, R. (1978) Dialogues Concerning Fiscal Religion, Journal of Monetary Economics, pp. 627-636.
  • CARNEIRO, F.G., FARIA, J.R. &BARRY, B.S. (2004), Government Revenues and Expenditures in Guinea-Bissau: Causality and Cointegration, Africa Region Working Paper Afo.65, pp.1-11.
  • CHANG, T..HO, Y-H. (2002) A Note on Testing "Tax-and-Spend, Spend-and-Tax or Fiscal Synchronization: The Case of China, Journal of Economic Development, V.27/1, pp. 151-160.
  • CHENG, B.S.,LAI, T.W. (1997) Government Expenditure and Economic Growth in South Korea: A VAR Approach , Journal of Economic Development, V.22, pp.11-24.
  • CHENG, B.S. (1999) Cointegration and Causality between Financial Development and Economic Growth in South Korea and Taiwan, Journal of Economic Development, pp.23-38.
  • CHENG, B.S. (1999) Causality Between Taxes and Expenditures: Evidence From Latin American Countries, Journal of Economics and Finance, V.23, N.2, pp. 184-192.
  • CLAUDILL, S.B., LIU, W.R.&CHANG, T. (2002) Tax-and-Spend, Spend-and-Tax or Fiscal Synchronization: New Evidence for Ten Countries, Applied Economics, 34, pp.1553-1561.
  • DAHLBERG, M., JOHANSON, E. (1998) The Revenues-Expenditures Nexus: Panel Data Evidence From Swedish Municipalities, Applied Economics, 30, pp. 1379-1386.
  • DARRAT, A.F. (1998) Tax and Spend, or Spend and Tax? An Inquiry into the Turkish Budgetary Process Southern Economic Journal, 64 (4), pp. 940-956.
  • DARRAT, A.F. (2002) Budget Balance Through Spending Cuts or Tax Adjustments? Contemporary Economic Policy, V.20, N.3, pp.221-233.
  • EDWARDS, S. (1995) Public Sector Deficits and Macroeconomic Stability in Developing Countries, Budget Deficits and Debt: Issues and Options içinde, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 307-375.
  • FRIEDMAN, M. (1978) The Limitations of Tax Limitation, Policy Review, Summer, pp.7-14.
  • FURSTENBERG, M.G., GREEN, J. & JEONG, J.H. (1986) Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax?, The Review of Economics and Statistics, LXVIII/2, pp. 179-188.
  • GARCIA, S., HENIN, P. (1999) Balancing Budget Through Tax Increases or Expenditure Cuts: is it neutral? Economic Modelling, 16. pp. 591-612.
  • GILBERT, C.L., (1986) Professor Hendry's Econometric Methodology, Oxfort Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 48 (3), pp.283-307.
  • GÜNAYDIN, İ. (2000) Türkiye'de Kamu Gelirleri ve Kamu Harcamaları Arasındaki Nedensel İlişkiler, SDÜ, İBF Dergisi, cilt.5/, s.l ss.55-74.
  • HENDRY, D.F. (1986) Econometric Modelling with Cointegrated Veriables: An Overwiev, Oxfort Bulletion of Economics and Statistics, August, pp. 201-212.
  • HONDROYIANNIS, G., PAPAPETROU, E. (1996) An Examination of the Casual Relationship between Goverment Spending and Revenue: A Cointegration Analysis, Public Choice, 89, pp. 363-374.
  • HOOVER, K.D., SHEFFRIN, S.M. (1992) Causation, Spending and Taxes: Sand in the Sand box or Tax Collector for the Welfare State?, American Economic Review, 82, pp.225-248.
  • HSIAO, C, (1981) Autoregressive Modelling and Money-Income Causality Detection, Journal of Monetary Economics, pp. 85-106.
  • JOHANSSON, E., DAHLBERG, M. (1998) The revenues-expenditures nexus:panel data evidence from Swedish municipalities, Applied Economics, 30, pp. 1379-86.
  • JONES, J.D., JOULFAIN, D. (1991) Federal Goverment Expenditures and Revenues in. the Early Years of the American Republic:Evidence from 1792- 1860, Journal of Macroeconomics, 13 (1) pp. 133-155.
  • KATRAKILIDIS, CD., (1997) Spending and Revenue in Greece: New Evidence From Error Correction Modelling, Applied Economic Letters, 4, pp. 387-391.
  • KOLLIAS, C, MAKRYDAKIS, S. (2000) Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax? Empirical Evidence From Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, Applied Economics, 32, 533-546.
  • KOREN, S., SIASSNY, A. (1995) Tax and Spend or Spend and Tax? An Empirical Investigation for Austria, Empirica, 22 (2), pp. 127-149.
  • LI, XIAOMING (2001) Government Revenue, Government Expenditure, and Temporal Causality: Evidence From China, Applied Economics, 33. pp.485-497.
  • LIANOS, T., FOUNTAS, S. (1997) Cointegration Tests of the Profit-maximising Equilibrium in Greek Manufacturing: 1958-1991, Journal Review of Applied Economics, V.I 1/3, pp.439-449.
  • LINCOLN, I.,HASAN, M. (1997) Tax then spend or spend then tax.? Experience in the UK, 1961-93, Applied Economics Letters, 4, pp.237-239.
  • MARLOW, L.M., MANAGE, N. (1987) Expenditures and receipts:Testing for causality in state and local government finances, Public Choice, 53, pp.243-255.
  • MILLER, S.M.,RUSSEK, F.S (1990) Co-Integration and Error-Correction Models:The Temporal Causality between Government Taxes and Spending, Southern Economic Journal, 57 (1), pp.221-229.
  • OWEYE, O., (1995) The casual relationship between taxes and expenditures in the G7 countriesxointegration and error-correction models, Applied Economics Letters, 2, pp. 19-22.
  • PARK, W.K. (1998) Granger Causality between Government Revenues and Expenditures in Korea, Journal of Economic Development, 23 (1), pp.145-155.
  • PAYNE, E.J., EWING, T.B. (1998) Goverment Revenue-Expenditure Nexus:Evidence from Latin America, Journal of Economic Development, 23/2 pp. 57-69.
  • PAYNE, J.E., (1997) The tax-spend debate:the case of Canada, Applied Economics Letters, 4, pp.381-386.
  • PAYNE, J.E., (1998) The tax-spend debate:Time series evidence from state budgets.PwMc Choice, 95, pp.307-320.
  • PINAR, A. (1998) A Model of Government Expenditures in Turkey, Yapı Kredi Economic Review, V.9, N.2, pp. 55-71.
  • PRADHAN, G.,UPADHYAYA, K.P. (2001) The Impact of Budget Deficits on National Saving in the USA, Applied Economics, 33, pp. 1745-1750.
  • PROVOPOULOS, G., ZAMBARAS, A., (1991) Testing for causality between goverment spending and taxation, Public Choice, 68, pp.277-282.
  • QUINTIERI, B.,BELLE, M., (1997) Causality Between Public Expenditure and Taxation, Evidence from the Italian case, Budgetary Policy, Modelling Public Expenditures in içinde, London and Newyork, 214-234.
  • RAM, R. (1988) Additional Evidence on Causality between Government Revenue and Government Expenditure, Southern Economic Journal, 54 (1), pp.763-769.
  • REDDICK, C.G. (2002) Canadian Provincial Budget Outcomes: A Long-Run and Short-Run Perspective, Financial Accountability^Management, 18/4, pp.355-82.
  • ROSS, K.L, PAYNE, J.E. (1998) A Re-Examination of Budgetary Disequilipria, Public Finance Review, 26 (1), Jenuary, pp.67-79.
  • SHAH, A., BAFFERS, J. (1994) Causality and comovement between taxes and expenditures: Historical evidence from Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, Journal of Development Economics, 44, pp.311-331.
  • SHAN, J., TIAN, G.G. (1998) Causality Between Exports and Economic Growth: The Empirical Evidence From Shanghai, Australian Economic Papaers, pp. 195- 202.
  • TODA, H.Y., YAMAMOTO, T. (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregression with possibly integrated processes, Journal of Econometrics, 66, pp.225-250.
APA GÜNAYDIN İ (2004). Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. , 163 - 181.
Chicago GÜNAYDIN İhsan Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. (2004): 163 - 181.
MLA GÜNAYDIN İhsan Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. , 2004, ss.163 - 181.
AMA GÜNAYDIN İ Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. . 2004; 163 - 181.
Vancouver GÜNAYDIN İ Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. . 2004; 163 - 181.
IEEE GÜNAYDIN İ "Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği." , ss.163 - 181, 2004.
ISNAD GÜNAYDIN, İhsan. "Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği". (2004), 163-181.
APA GÜNAYDIN İ (2004). Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5(2), 163 - 181.
Chicago GÜNAYDIN İhsan Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi 5, no.2 (2004): 163 - 181.
MLA GÜNAYDIN İhsan Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, vol.5, no.2, 2004, ss.163 - 181.
AMA GÜNAYDIN İ Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi. 2004; 5(2): 163 - 181.
Vancouver GÜNAYDIN İ Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi. 2004; 5(2): 163 - 181.
IEEE GÜNAYDIN İ "Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği." Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5, ss.163 - 181, 2004.
ISNAD GÜNAYDIN, İhsan. "Vergi-Harcama Tartışması: Türkiye Örneği". Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi 5/2 (2004), 163-181.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
22-04-2024 11:4

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları