TÜRKİYE’DE KAMU HARCAMALARI VE DIŞA AÇIKLIK İLİŞKİSİNİN İNCELENMESİ: MEKÂNSAL PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de il bazında 2004-2017 dönemi kapsamında dış ticaretin kamu harcamaları üzerindeki etkisini açıklamaktır. Çalışmada ayrıca mekânsal panel veri modelleri ile ihmal edilen mekânsal etkiler de dikkate alınmaktadır. Bu bağlamda öncelikle klasik ve robust LM testleri ile mekânsal etkileşimin olup olmadığı araştırılmıştır. Çalışmada uygun mekânsal panel veri modelinin belirlenmesi amacıyla Mekânsal Durbin Modeli, Mekânsal Gecikme Modeli ve Mekânsal Hata Modeli’nden yararlanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda mekânsal etkinin varlığı altında telafi hipotezinin desteklendiğine ilişkin istatistiksel olarak anlamlı sonuçlar tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Dışa Açıklık, Kamu Harcamaları, Mekânsal Panel Veri Modeli

ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND TRADE OPENNESS IN TURKEY: A SPATIAL PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

The objective of this study is to explain impact on public spending of the foreign trade, with annual data for Turkey's provinces in the time period from 2004 to 2017. Our study also takes into account the neglected spatial effects with spatial panel data models. It has been investigated whether there is spatial interaction with classical and robust LM tests. In this study, Spatial Durbin Model, Spatial Autoregressive Model and Spatial Error Model is used to determine the appropriate spatial panel data model. The estimates suggest that there is statistically significant evidence for the existence of spatial effect. Moreover, the results reveal that compensation hypothesis is valid.

Keywords:

Trade Openness, Public Spending, Spatial Panel Data Model,

PDF

___

Alesina, A. ve Perotti, R. (1997). The welfare state and competitiveness, American Economic Review, 87(5), 921-939.
Altan, A. ve Aysu, A. (2013). Etkinlik ve telafi edici etki hipotezi: Seçilmiş ülkeler üzerine ampirik bir inceleme, TİSK Akademi, 1, 130-154.
Aydoğuş, İ. ve Topçu, M. (2013). An investigation of co-integration and causality between trade openness and government size in Turkey, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 3(2), 319-323.
Balle, F. ve Vaidya, A. (2002). A regional analysis of openness and government size, Applied Economics Letters, 9(5), 289-292.
Belotti, F., Hughes, G., ve Mortari, A. P. (2016). Spatial panel data models using Stata, CEIS Tor Vergata Research Paper Series, 14(5), 255–271
Benarroch, M. ve Pandey, M. (2012). The relationship between trade openness and government size: Does disaggregating government expenditure matter?, Journal of Macroeconomics, 34, 239-252.
Borghi, E. (2009). Trade openness and public expenditure on labor market policies, Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elisa_Borghi2/publication/46466306_Trade_openness_and_public_expenditure_on_labor_market_policies/links/00b4952c13acf0b611000000.pdf.
Cameron, D. R. (1978). The expansion of the public economy, American Political Science Review, 72(4), 1243-1261.
Ceylan, S. ve Yılmaz Şahin, B. (2018). Kamu büyüklüğü dışa açıklık ilişkisinin analizi: Türkiye örneği, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 25(2), 501-511.
Dreher, A., Sturm, J. E. ve Ursprung, H. W. (2008). The impact of globalization on the composition of government expenditures: Evidence from panel data, Public Choice, 134(4), 263-292.
Elhorst, J. P. ve Freret, S. (2009). Evidence of political yardstick competition in France using a two-regime spatial Durbin model, Journal of Regional Science, 49(5): 931–951.
Elhorst, P., Piras, G. ve Arbia, G. (2010). Growth and convergence in a multiregional model with space-time dynamics, Geographical Analysis 42(3), 338–355.
Garrett, G. (2001). Globalization and government spending around the world, Studies in Comparative International Development, 1-27.
Gemmel, N., Kneller, R. ve Snaz, I. (2008). Foreign investment, international trade and the size and structure of public expenditures, European Journal of Political Economy, 24, 151-171.
Ibrahim, T. M. (2015). The causal link between trade openness and government size: Evidence from the five largest economies in Africa, International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), ISSN 2408-0101, Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology, Kavala, 8(1), 121-135.
Iversen, T. ve Cusack, T. R. (2000). The causes of welfare state expansion deindustrialization or globalization?, World Politics, 52, 313-49.
Jetter, M. ve Parmeter, C. F. (2015). Trade openness and bigger governments: The role of country size revisited, European Journal of Political Economy 37, 49-63.
Jeannneney, S. G. ve Hua, P. (2004). Why do more open Chinese provinces have bigger governments?, Review of International Economics, 12(3), 525-542.
Kargı, V. ve Özuğurlu, Y. (2007). Türkiye’de küresellesmenin vergi politikaları üzerine etkileri: 1980-2005 dönemi, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 14(1), 275-289.
Kimakova, A. (2009). Government size and openness revisited: The case of financial globalization, KYKLOS, 62(3), 394-406.
Kostov, P. (2009). A spatial quantile regression hedonic model of agricultural land prices, Spatial Economic Analysis 4(1): 53–72.
Liberati, P. (2007). Trade openness, capital openness and government size, Journal of Public Policy, 27(2), 215-247.
Lee, L.F. ve Yu J. (2010). Some recent developments in spatial panel data models, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 40: 255-271
Molana, H., Montagna, C. ve Violato, M. (2004). On the causal relationship between trade openness and government size: Evidence from 23 OECD countries, University of Dundee. Discussion Paper, 164, 1-18.
Moscone, F., ve Knapp, M. (2005). Exploring the spatial pattern of mental health expenditure, Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 8: 205–217.
Moscone, F., Tosetti, E. ve Vittadini, G. (2012). Social interaction in patients’ hospital choice: Evidence from Italy, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 175: 453–472.
Peacock, A. T. ve Wiseman, J. (1967), The growth of public expenditure in the United Kingdom. Princeton University Press.
Rehm, P. (2005). Citizen support for the welfare state: Determinants of preferences for income redistribution, Discussion Paper SP II 2005 – 02 Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.
Reis Mourão, P. (2007). Has trade openness increased all Portuguese public expenditures? A detailed time-series study, Financial Theory and Practice, 31,(3), 225-247.
Revelli, F. (2005). On spatial public ﬁnance empirics, International Tax and Public Finance, 12(4): 475–492.
Rivas, D. G., Sort, M. S. ve Rodríguez, E. S. (2009). The relationship between trade openness and public expenditure. The Spanish case, 1960-2000, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales Universidad de Zaragoza, 1-49.
Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open economies have bigger governments?, The Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), 997-1032.
Ruggie, J.G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order, International Organization, 36, 379-41.
Sáenz, E., Sabaté, M. ve Gadea, M. D. (2013). Trade openness and public expenditure: The Spanish case, 1960–2000, Public Choice, 154, 173-195.
Sener, S., Bayrakdar, S. ve Hacioğlu, V. (2015). The analysis for the validity of compensation and efficiency hypotheses in Turkey between 1975 and 2013, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 624-631.
Shahbaz, M., Rehman, H. U. ve Amir, N. (2010). The impact of trade and financial-openness on government size: A case study of Pakistan, Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 6(1), 105-118.
Soll´e Oll´e, A. (2003). Electoral accountability and tax mimicking: The eﬀects of electoral margins, coalition government, and ideology, European Journal of Political Economy, 19(4), 685–713.
Soll´e Oll´e, A. (2005). Expenditure spillovers and ﬁscal interactions: Empirical evidence from local governments in Spain, Working Papers - Institut d’Economia de Barcelona 3.
Taşar, İ. (2016). Türkiye’de etkinlik ve telafi edici etki hipotezlerinin geçerliliğinin test edilmesi, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 15-22.
Terzi, H. (1998). Kamu harcamaları ve ekonomik kalkınma ilişkisi üzerine ekonometrik bir inceleme, Iktisat Isletme ve Finans, 13(142), 67-80.
Tobler, W. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region, Economic Geography, 46(2): 234–240.
Tuncer, G. (2016). Telafi hipotezinin Türkiye’de geçerliliği: Bölgesel panel veri analizi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 48, 144-154.
Tüleykan, H. ve Bayramoğlu, S. (2016). Türkiye’de 24 Ocak kararları ile başlayan finansal serbestleşmenin günümüz iktisadi ve mali yapısına yansımaları, International Journal of Social Science, 44, 401-420.
Tütüncü, A. ve Zengin H. (2019). Telafi ve etkinlik hipotezlerinin MINT ülkeleri için geçerliliğinin incelenmesi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 81-93.
Wagner, A. (1883). Three Extracts on Public Finance, Musgrave, A.R., Peacock, A.T., (ed.) (1967).
Zakaria, M. ve Shakoor, S. (2011). Relationship between government size and trade openness: Evidence from Pakistan, Transit Stud Rev., 18: 328-341.
Zeren, F., Ergün, S. (2013), Ticari açıklık ve kamu büyüklüğü ilişkisi: Panel nedensellik testi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 27(4), 229-240.
Zortuk, M. ve Beşer, B. (2014). Dışa açıklık ve demokratik yapının kamu kesimi büyüklüğü üzerindeki etkisi: Rodrik hipotezine geçiş ekonomilerinden kanıt, Ege Akademik Bakış, 14(3), 345-359.