Kamu Büyüklüğü Dışa Açıklık İlişkisinin Analizi: Türkiye Örneği

Dışa açıklığın makroekonomik değişkenlere ve ekonomik büyümeye etkisi yıllardırtartışılmaktadır. Dışa açıklık yeni ekonomik faaliyetlere ve uzun dönemde üretimin sektörelbileşiminde değişikliğe neden olabilmektedir. Bunlar, üretim yapısında ve kamu harcamalarınıntoplam harcamalar içindeki payında bir değişiklik olabilir. Küreselleşme ve serbest ticaret, kamuharcamaları ve büyümesini etkilemekte fakat bu etkinin yönü tartışılmaktadır. Kamu büyüklüğü vedışa açıklık arasındaki ilişkiye ilişkin literatürde üç temel hipotez vardır. Bu hipotezler telafihipotezi, etkinlik hipotezi ve sanayisizleşme (deindustrialization) hipotezidir. Telafi hipotezine göre,kamu büyüklüğü ve dışa açıklık arasında pozitif bir ilişki, etkinlik hipotezine göre negatif bir ilişkivardır. Sanayisizleşme hipotezine göre ise kamu büyüklüğü ve dışa açıklık arasında nedensellikilişkisi yoktur. Bu çalışmada, kamu büyüklüğü ve dışa açıklık ilişkisi, 1998:1-2016:4 döneminikapsayan üç aylık verilerle Türkiye ekonomisi için tahmin edilmiştir. Değişkenler arasındakiilişkiler Engle-Granger Koentegrasyon ve Hata Düzeltme Modeli kullanılarak araştırılmıştır.Ekonometrik analizler, Türkiye ekonomisinde, kamu büyüklüğü ile dışa açıklık arasında uzundönemli ilişki ve kısa dönemde de çift yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi olduğunu göstermiştir.

Analysis Of Relationship Government Size And Openness: The Case Of Turkey

for years. Openness can lead to changes in new economic activities and in the sectoral composition of long-term production. These may be a change in the share of production and public expenditure within total expenditures. Globalization and free trade affect public spending and growth, but the direction of this effect is being debated. There are three basic hypotheses in the literature on the relationship between government size and openness. These hypotheses are the compensation hypothesis, the efficiency hypothesis and the deindustrialization hypothesis. According to the compensation hypothesis, there is a positive relationship between government size and openness, and a negative relation in efficiency hypothesis. According to the hypothesis of deindustrialization, there is no causality relation between government size and openness.In this study, the relationship between government size and openness has been estimated by utilizing quarterly data for the Turkish economy over the period 1998:1- 2016:4. Relationships between variables have been investigated by employing Engle-Granger Cointegration and Vector Error Correction Model analyses. Econometric analyses indicate that there are long run relationship between variables, and two-way causality relation in Turkish economy

PDF

___

Wilson, J.D. (1987). Trade, Capital Mobility and Tax Competition. J Political Econ 95:835–856.
Tavits, M. (2004). The Size of Government İn Majoritarian and Consensus Democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 37 (3), 340-359.
Shelton, C. A. (2007). The Size and Composition of Government Expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 91(11), 2230-2260
Ruggie, J.G. (1982). International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism İn The Postwar Economic Order, International Organization, 36, 379–415.
Rodrik, D. (2011). Akıllı Küreselleşme. Çev: Burcu Aksu. Ankara: Efil Yayınevi
Rodrik, D. (1998). Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments, Journal of Political Economy, 106, 997-1032.
Potrafke, N. (2009). Did Globalization Restrict Partisan Politics? An Empirical Evaluation of Social Expenditures İn A Panel of OECD Countries. Public Choice, 140 (1-2), 105-124.
Persson T., Tabellini, G. (1992). The Politics of 1992: Fiscal Policy And European İntegration. Rev Econ Stud, 59:689–701
Miller, S. M., Russek, F. S. (1990). Co-İntegration and Error-Correction Models: The Temporal Causality Between Government Taxes And Spending. Southern Economic Journal, 221- 229.
MacKinnon, J.G. (1991). Critical Values For Cointegration Tests. (No. 1227), Queen's Economics Department Working Paper
Jin, J., Zou, H. (2002). How Does Fiscal Decentralization Affect Aggregate, National, and Subnational Government Size?. Journal of Urban Economics, 52 (2), 270-293.
Iversen, T., Cusack, T. (2000). The Causes of Welfare State Expansion: Deindustrialization or Globalization?. World Politics, 52 (3), 313-349.
Granger, C. W. (1988). Some Recent Development İn A Concept of Causality. Journal of Econometrics, 39(1), 199-211.
Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross- Spectral Methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 37(3), 424-438.
Gordon, R.H. (1983). An Optimal Taxation Approach To Fiscal Federalism. Q J Econ, 98:567–586.
Garrett, G., Mitchell, D. (2001). Globalization, Government Spending and Taxation İn the OECD. European Journal of Political Research, 39 (2), 145-177.
Garrett, G., (2000). Globalization and Government Spending Around The World. Studies in Comparative International Development, 35 (4), 3-29.
Epifani, P., Gancia, G. (2009). Openness, Government Size and The Terms of Trade. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 76 (2), pp. 629-668.
Engle, R. F., Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(2), 251-276.
Engle, R. F., Yoo, B. S. (1987). Forecasting and Testing İn Cointegrated Systems. Journal of Econometrics, 35, 143-159
Dreher, A., Sturm, J.E., Ursprung, H. (2008). The İmpact of Globalization On The Composition of Government Expenditures: Evidence From Panel Data. Public Choice, 134 (3-4), 263-292
Dreher, A. (2006). The İnfluence of Globalization On Taxes and Social Policy: An Empirical Analysis for OECD Countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 22 (1), 179-201.
Dominte, L. (2006). Determinants and Effects of Economic Openness. Analele Stiintifice ale Universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iasi, 52/53, s.243-245.
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(366a), 427-431.
Dickey, D. A., Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society,49(4), 1057-1072.
Cusack, T. (1997). Partisan Politics and Public Finance: Changes İn Public Spending İn The İndustrialized Democracies 1955-1989. Public Choice. 91 (3-4). 375-395 41.
Cameron, D. R. (1978). The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis. American Political Science Review, 72, 237–269.
Borghi, E. (2008). Trade Openness and Public Expenditure on Labor Market Prices, http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2008/Papers/Borghi.pdf
Benarroch, M, Pandey, M. (2008). Trade Openness and Government Size. Econ Lett 101:157–159.
Balle F., Vaidya A. (2002). A Regional Analysis of Openness and Government Size. Appl Econ Lett, 9(5):289–292.
Aydogus, İ., Topcu, M. (2013). An Investigation of Co-Integration and Causality Between Trade Openness and Government Size İn Turkey. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.319-323.
Alvarez, S., Pascual, M., Romero, D. (2003). Protección Social, Globalizacióny Crecimiento Económico,. Hacienda Pública española, Monografía, pp. 63-77.
Alesina, A., Wacziarg, R. (1998). Openness, Country Size and Government. Journal of Public Economics, 69 (3), 305-321.
Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1997). Fiscal Adjustments İn OECD Countries: Composition And Macroeconomic Effects. Staff Papers, 44(2), 210-248.
Aidt, T., Jensen, P. (2009). Tax Structure, Size of Government, and the Extension of the Voting Franchise İn Western Europe, 1860-1938. International Tax and Public Finance, 16 (3), 362-394.
Abizadeh, S. (2005). An Analysis of Government Expenditure and Trade Liberalization. Applied Economics, 37 (16), 1881-1884.