Politická ekonomie 2025, 73(3):471-499 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.1455

Re-examining the Tax-spending Hypothesis in G7 Countries: Evidence from Time and Frequency Domain Causality Approaches

Burcu Balsever Erim, Hasim Akca
Burcu Balsever Erim (corresponding author), Cukurova University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Adana, Turkey
Hasim Akca, Cukurova University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Adana, Turkey

In the literature, it is still thought that to combat budget deficits, the state struggles to adjust the relationship between government revenues and spending. Accordingly, the causality relationship between government revenues and spending is generally explained through four main hypotheses: tax-spending, spending-tax, fiscal synchronization and institutional separation hypotheses. In addition to the doubt that the first and the only step in the fight against the budget deficit is government revenues and government expenditures, there are various uncertainties in the studies on this subject in the literature. There is no consensus on the subject due to the differences in methodological methods in previous studies, the inability to determine the macroeconomic size used to represent the revenue variable and differences in the revenue composition of countries. This situation causes the findings obtained from empirical studies in this field to vary and misleading policy recommendations to be made. For this reason, in this study, the causality relationship between government revenues, tax and spending data in the G7 countries for the period 1965-2021 is examined within the framework of two different models, using both time domain and frequency domain causality tests. We draw attention to the effect of differences in methodological methods on the results obtained. The complex results obtained, in addition to shedding empirical light on the complexity arising from the methodological methods available in the literature, also show that it is not healthy to explain studies on combating budget deficits only with the causality relationship between government revenues and spending or tax and spending.

Keywords: Budget deficit, tax-spending hypothesis, time and frequency domain causality
JEL classification: H20, H50, H61, H62

Received: May 14, 2024; Revised: July 1, 2024; Accepted: August 12, 2024; Prepublished online: June 17, 2025; Published: June 19, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Balsever Erim, B., & Akca, H. (2025). Re-examining the Tax-spending Hypothesis in G7 Countries: Evidence from Time and Frequency Domain Causality Approaches. Politická ekonomie73(3), 471-499. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.1455
Download citation

References

  1. Adali Z, Toygar A and Yildirim U (2023) Assessing the stochastic behavior of fishing grounds footprint of top ten fishing countries. Regional Studies in Marine Science 63: 103015 Go to original source...
  2. Afonso A, Rault C (2009) Spend-and-Tax: A Panel Data Investigation for the EU. Economics Bulletin 29(4): 2542-2548 Go to original source...
  3. Afonso A, Jalles J. T (2016) The elusive character of fiscal sustainability. Applied Economics 48(28): 2651-2664. Go to original source...
  4. Ahiakpor J. C, Amirkhalkhali S (1989) On the difficulty of eliminating deficits with higher taxes: Some Canadian evidence. Southern Economic Journal 56(1): 24-31 Go to original source...
  5. Anderson W, Wallace M. S and Warner J. T (1986) Government spending and taxation: What causes what?. Southern Economic Journal 52(3): 630-639 Go to original source...
  6. Aydin M, Pata U. K and Inal V (2022) Economic policy uncertainty and stock prices in BRIC countries: evidence from asymmetric frequency domain causality approach. Applied Economic Analysis 30(89): 114-129 Go to original source...
  7. Aydin M (2023) The dynamic relationships between nuclear energy consumption, nuclear reactors and load capacity factor: time and frequency domain panel data analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research: 1-12 Go to original source...
  8. Aydin M, Bozatli O (2023) The impacts of the refugee population, renewable energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth on health expenditure in Turkey: new evidence from Fourier-based analyses. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30(14): 41286-41298 Go to original source...
  9. Baghestani H, McNown R (1994) Do revenues or spendings respond to budgetary disequilibria?, Southern Economic Journal 61(2): 311-322 Go to original source...
  10. Balsalobre-Lorente D, Topaloglu E. E, Nur T and Evcimen C (2023) Exploring the linkage between financial development and ecological footprint in APEC countries: A novel view under corruption perception and environmental policy stringency. Journal of Cleaner Production: 137686 Go to original source...
  11. Becker R, Enders W and Lee J (2006) A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis 27(3): 381-409. Go to original source...
  12. Bella M, Quintieri B (1996) Evidence from the Italian case. Budgetary Policy Modelling: 208-227
  13. Blackley P. R (1986) Causality Between Revenues and Spendings and the Size of the Federal Budget. Government Finance Quarterly 14(2): 139-156 Go to original source...
  14. Bozatli O, Bal H, Albayrak M (2023) Testing the export-led growth hypothesis in Turkey: New evidence from time and frequency domain causality approaches. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 32(6): 835-853 Go to original source...
  15. Breitung J, Candelon B (2006) Testing for short-and long-run causality: a frequency-domain approach. Journal of Econometrics 132(2): 363-378 Go to original source...
  16. Buchanan J. M, Wagner R. E, Buchanan J. M, Wagner R. E, Meckling W. H and Olson M (1978) The political biases of Keynesian economics. Fiscal responsibility in constitutional democracy 1(1): 79-117 Go to original source...
  17. 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 27(1): 151-160
  18. Chang T, Liu W. R and Caudill S. B (2002) Tax-and-spend, spend-and-tax, or fiscal synchronization: new evidence for ten countries. Applied Economics 34(12): 1553-1561 Go to original source...
  19. Delena M, Magazzino C (2012) Government Spending and Revenue in Italy 1862-1993. Economic Notes 41(3): 145-72 Go to original source...
  20. Kirikkaleli D, Ozbeser B (2022) New insights into an old issue: exploring the nexus between government spendings and economic growth in the United States. Applied Economics Letters 29(2): 129-134 Go to original source...
  21. Ewing B. T, Payne J. E, Thompson M. A and Al-Zoubi O. M (2006) Government Spendings and Revenues: Evidence from Asymmetric Modeling. Southern Economic Journal 73(1): 190-197 Go to original source...
  22. Friedman M (2019) The limitations of tax limitation. In Policy Studies: Review Annual. Routledge, NY
  23. Garcia S, Hénin P. Y (1999) Balancing budget through tax increases or spending cuts: is it neutral?. Economic Modelling 16(4): 591-612 Go to original source...
  24. Geweke J (1982) Measurement of linear dependence and feedback between multiple time series. Journal of The American Statistical Association: 77(378), 304-313 Go to original source...
  25. Granger C. W (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society 37(3): 424-438 Go to original source...
  26. Gurdal T, Aydin M and Inal V (2021) The relationship between tax revenue, government expenditure, and economic growth in G7 countries: new evidence from time and frequency domain approaches. Economic Change and Restructuring 54(1): 305-337 Go to original source...
  27. Hoover K. D, Sheffrin S. M (1992) Causation, Spending, and Taxes: Sand in the Sandbox or Tax Collector for the Welfare State?. American Economic Review 82(1): 225-248
  28. Hosoya Y (1991) The decomposition and measurement of the interdependence between second-order stationary process. Probability Theory and Related Fields 88(1): 429-444 Go to original source...
  29. Koc P, Izgi Sahpaz K (2023) Analysis of The Causality Relationship Among Digitalisation, Unemployment Rate, and Divorce Rates: A Research on Türkiye. Sosyoekonomi 31(56): 151-169 Go to original source...
  30. Koren S, Stiassny A (1998) Tax and spend, or spend and tax? An international study. Journal of Policy Modeling 20(2): 163-191 Go to original source...
  31. Kwiatkowski D, Phillips P. C, Schmidt P and Shin Y (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of econometrics 54(1-3): 159-178 Go to original source...
  32. Linhares F, Nojosa G (2020) Changes in the tax-spend nexus: Evidence from Selected European Countries. Economics Bulletin 40(4): 3077-3087
  33. Magazzino C, Brady G. L and Forte F (2019) A panel data analysis of the fiscal sustainability of G-7 countries. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries 20(1): e00127 Go to original source...
  34. Manage N, Marlow M. L (1986) The causal relation between federal expenditures and receipts. Southern Economic Journal 52(3): 617-629 Go to original source...
  35. Marlow M. L, Manage N (1987) Spendings and Receipts: Testing for Causality in State and Local Government Finances. Government Choice 53(3): 243-255 Go to original source...
  36. Meltzer A. H, Richard S. F (1983) Tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Government Choice 41(3): 403-418 Go to original source...
  37. 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): 221-229 Go to original source...
  38. Mutascu M (2015) A bootstrap panel Granger causality analysis of government revenues and spendings in the PIIGS countries. Economics Bulletin 35(3): 2000-2004
  39. Mutascu M (2016) Government revenues and spendings in the East European economies: A bootstrap panel granger causality approach. Eastern European Economics 54(6): 489-502 Go to original source...
  40. Musgrave R (1966) Principles of budget determination. Government finance: Selected readings. Random House, NY
  41. Nazlioglu S, Gormus N. A and Soytas U (2016) Oil prices and real estate investment trusts (REITs): Gradual-shift causality and volatility transmission analysis. Energy economics 60: 168-175 Go to original source...
  42. Owoye O (1995) The Causal Relationship Between Taxes and Spendings in the G-7 Countries: Cointegration and Error-Correction Models. Applied Economics Letters 2(1): 19-22 Go to original source...
  43. Owoye O, Onafowora O. A (2011) The relationship between tax revenues and government expenditures in European Union and non-European Union OECD countries. Government Finance Review 39(3): 429-461 Go to original source...
  44. Peacock A. T, Wiseman J (1961) Front matter, the growth of government expenditure in the United Kingdom. In The growth of government expenditure in the United Kingdom. Princeton University Press, USA
  45. Payne J. E (1997) The tax-spend debate: the case of Canada. Applied Economics Letters 4(6): 381-386 Go to original source...
  46. Paleologou S. M (2013) Asymmetries in the revenue-spending nexus: A tale of three countries. Economic Modelling 30(1): 52-60 Go to original source...
  47. Ram R (1988) Additional Evidence on Causality between Government Revenue and Government Spending. Southern Economic Journal 54(3): 763-769 Go to original source...
  48. Reddick G. C (2003) Long-Run and Short-Run Budgeting: Theories and Empirical Evidence for the Canadian Provinces. International Journal of Government Administration 26(4): 427-453 Go to original source...
  49. Sakamoto N, Takimoto T (2015) Tax, spend, and democracy indices in Japan. Yamagata University FLSS DP, E01.
  50. Saunoris J.W, Payne J.E (2010) Tax more or spend less? Asymmetries in the UK revenue-spending nexus. Journal of Policy Model 32(4): 478-487 Go to original source...
  51. Toda H. Y, Yamamoto T (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of econometrics 66(1-2): 225-250 Go to original source...
  52. Trachanas E, Katrakilidis C (2013) Fiscal deficits under financial pressure and insolvency: Evidence for Italy, Greece and Spain. Journal of Policy Modeling 35(5): 730-749 Go to original source...
  53. Von Furstenberg G. M, Green R. J and Jeong J. H (1986) Tax and Spend, or Spend and Tax? The Review of Economics and Statistics 68(2): 179-188 Go to original source...
  54. Vamvoukas G (2012) Panel Data Modelling and The Tax-Spend Controversy in the Euro Zone. Applied Economics 44(31): 4073-4085 Go to original source...
  55. Young T (2009) Tax-Spend or Fiscal Illusion?. Cato Journal 29(3): 469-484
  56. Westerlund J, Mahdavi S and Firoozi F (2011) The tax-spending nexus: Evidence from a panel of US state-local governments. Economic Modelling 28(3): 885-890 Go to original source...
  57. Wang Y, Wei W. X (2023) The Nexus between Federal Revenue and Spending in Canada: A Time-Frequency Perspective. Statistics, Politics and Policy 14(1): 113-123 Go to original source...
  58. Yilanci V, Aslan M and Ozgur O (2018) Testing the validity of PPP theory for African countries. Applied Economics Letters 25(18): 1273-1277 Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.