International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 7, Issue 8 (August 2020), Pages: 130-136

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: The effect of taxes and public expenditures on happiness: Empirical evidence from OECD countries

 Author(s): Mahmut Ünsal Şaşmaz, Emre Şakar *

 Affiliation(s):

 Department of Public Finance, Uşak University, Uşak, Turkey

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4309-2884

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.08.014

 Abstract:

Taxes collected for public expenditures have economic, social, and environmental objectives. Public expenditures financed through taxes cover a wide range of spending made by the public. They may have some effects on the happiness of individuals and society due to the fact that taxes are collected from individuals by force, and public expenditures are made for the needs and economic development of the country. In this study, the effect of taxes and public expenditures on happiness has been investigated in 23 OECD countries during the period of 2010-2017 by panel data analysis. As a result of the study, it has been determined that taxes and public expenditures have a positive effect on the level of happiness. 

 © 2020 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Tax, Public expenditure, Happiness, Panel data analysis

 Article History: Received 7 February 2020, Received in revised form 10 May 2020, Accepted 15 May 2020

 Acknowledgment:

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Şaşmaz MÜ and Şakar E (2020). The effect of taxes and public expenditures on happiness: Empirical evidence from OECD countries. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(8): 130-136

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 

----------------------------------------------

 References (27)

  1. Akay A, Bargain O, Dolls M, Neumann D, Peichl A, and Siegloch S (2012). Income, taxes and happiness. IZA Discussion Paper, IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany.   [Google Scholar]
  2. APS (2011). A more progressive tax system makes people happier, 54-nation study finds. Association for Psychological Science, Washington, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilgin HK (2011). Türkiye'de vergi ahlakinin belirleyicileri [Determinants of tax moral in Turkey]. METU Studies in Development, 38(2): 167-188.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Breusch T and Pagan A (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications for the error components model with incomplete panels. Review of Economic Studies, 47: 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111   [Google Scholar]
  5. Çevik S (2012). Mükellefin devlet ve toplumla etkileşimi, bireysel normlar ve vergi ahlakı. Maliye Dergisi, 163: 258-289.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Dao TK (2017). Government expenditure and happiness: Direct and indirect effects. Research Paper, International Institute of Social Studies, Hague, Netherlands.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Dumludağ D, Gökdemir Ö, and Veenhoven R (2017). Gelir, harcama ve tasarruf ve mutluluk ilişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Marmara Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi. Available online at: https://bit.ly/2Uj4Tr7
  8. Flavin P, Pacek AC, and Radcliff B (2014). Assessing the impact of the size and scope of government on human well-being. Social Forces, 92(4): 1241-1258. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou010   [Google Scholar]
  9. Frey BS, Luechinger S, and Stutzer A (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. Economic Journal, 110(466): 918-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00570   [Google Scholar]
  10. Hessami Z (2010). The size and composition of government spending in Europe and its impact on well‐being. KYKLOS, 63(3): 346-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2010.00478.x   [Google Scholar]
  11. Im KS, Pesaran MH, and Shin Y (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1): 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7   [Google Scholar]
  12. Jefferson T (1809). To the republicans of Washington county, Maryland. Available online at: https://bit.ly/2MEbtE5
  13. Kao C (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1): 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2   [Google Scholar]
  14. Kasmaoui K and Bourhaba O (2017). Happiness and public expenditure: Evidence from a panel analysis. MPRA Paper No. 79339, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Munich, Germany.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Maddala GS and Wu S (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1): 631-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.61.s1.13   [Google Scholar]
  16. OECD (2019a). Tax revenue (Indicator). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Data, Paris, France.  
  17. OECD (2019b). General government spending (Indicator). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Data, Paris, France.
  18. Ortiz-Ospina E and Roser M (2017). Happiness and life satisfaction. Our World in Data. Available online at: https://bit.ly/3eWa5sE
  19. Ott JC (2011). Government and happiness in 130 nations: Good governance fosters higher level and more equality of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 102(1): 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9719-z   [Google Scholar] PMid:21516144 PMCid:PMC3068254
  20. Pedroni P (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1): 653-670. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.61.s1.14   [Google Scholar]
  21. Pedroni P (2000). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Advances in Econometrics, 15: 93-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15004-2   [Google Scholar]
  22. Pedroni P (2004). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20(3): 597-625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604203073   [Google Scholar]
  23. Pesaran MH (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229; IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240, IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany.   [Google Scholar]
  24. Pesaran MH, Ullah A, and Yamagata T (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error crosssection independence. Econometrics Journal, 11(1): 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x   [Google Scholar]
  25. Ram R (2009). Government spending and happiness of the population: Additional evidence from large cross-country samples. Public Choice, 138(3-4): 483-490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9372-0   [Google Scholar]
  26. Tabar FJ, Najafi Z, and Badooei YS (2016). Experimental test of government expenditures increases and crowding out of private consumption. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(6): 59-65.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Weisbach DA (2008). What does happiness research tell us about taxation? The Journal of Legal Studies, 37(S2): S293-S324. https://doi.org/10.1086/529073   [Google Scholar]