Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches

Ceyhun ELGİN, (Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Friedrich SCHNEİDER (Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Avusturya)
Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies
17 3
Yıl: 2016 Cilt: 30 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 51 - 75 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches

Öz:
Bu makalede OECD üyesi 38 ülke için iki farklı yöntemle kayıtdışı ekonomi tahmin seviyeleri ve kayıtdışı ekonominin belirleyicileri karşılaştırılmaktadır. Yöntemlerden biri MIMIC yöntemine diğeri ise Elgin ve Öztunalı (2012) çalışmasında geliştirilen iki sektörlü dinamik genel denge modeline dayanmaktadır. Sonuçlarımız, MIMIC yönteminin kayıtdışı ekonominin temel belirleyicileri olarak, gelir vergisi (%13.8) dolaylı vergiler (%14.1), vergi ahlakı (%14.5), işsizlik (%14.7), serbest-meslek oranı (%14.5), GSYİH büyümesi (%14.3) ve işletme özgürlüğü endeksi (%14.2)'ı işaret etmektedir. Ancak, dinamik genel denge yöntemine dayanan tahminler için ise temel belirleyiciler olarak GSYİH büyümesi (%24.7%) dolaylı vergiler (%18.5), işsizlik (%18.3), vergi ahlakı (%17.1),gelir vergisi (%11.2), serbest meslek oranı (%5.8), ve işletme özgürlüğü endeksini (%4.3) göstermektedir. Sonuçlarımız genel olarak iki yöntemin benzer büyüklük seviyeleri tahminlemesine karşın, kayıtdışı ekonominin belirleyicilerinin etkileri yönünden farklılaştığını ortaya koymaktadır.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: İşletme İşletme Finans

OECD Üyesi Ülkelerde Kayıtdışı Ekonomi: Dinamik Genel Denge ve MIMIC Yöntemleri

Öz:
In this paper we compare the levels and driving forces of shadow economies in 38 OECD countries using two different methodologies. One of these methods is the multipleindicators-multiple-causes (MIMIC) approach based on an estimation of a structural equation model. The other one is based on a two-sector dynamic general equilibrium (DGE) model developed by Elgin and Oztunali (2012). According to our results, the average driving forces of the shadow economy of the 38 OECD countries obtained using the MIMIC model show that personal income tax (13.8%), indirect taxes (14.1%), tax morale (14.5%), unemployment (14.7%), self-employment (14.5%), growth of GDP (14.3%) and business freedom index (14.2%) contribute more or less evenly to shadow economies. However, according to the estimates constructed using the DGE model, the growth of GDP per-capita has by far the largest effect (24.7%) followed by indirect taxes (18.5%), unemployment (18.3%), tax morale (17.1%), personal income tax (11.2%), self-employment (5.8%), and business freedom (4.3%). Our analysis generally shows that even though the two datasets are similar in levels and both illustrate a declining trend of shadow economy size over the period of the analysis, they indicate certain differences with respect to the effects of causal variables on shadow economies.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: İşletme İşletme Finans
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Bajada, C. and Schneider F. (2005). Size, Causes and Consequences of the Underground Economy: An International Perspective. Aldershot (GB): Ashgate Publishing Company.
  • Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.
  • Breusch, T. (2005a). The Canadian Underground Economy: An Examination of Giles and Tedds. Canadian Tax Journal, 53(2): 367-391.
  • ------, (2005b). "Estimating the Underground Economy, Using MIMIC Models." Working Paper. National University of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
  • Buehn, A. and Schneider, F. (2012). "Shadow Economies around the World: Novel Insights, Accepted Knowledge, and New Estimates," International Tax and Public Finance, 19: 139-171.
  • ------, (2013). "Size and Development of Tax Evasion in 38 OECD Countries: What Do We (not) Know," Johannes Kepler University Working Paper.
  • Buehn, A., Karmann, A., and Schneider, F. (2009). Shadow Economy and Do-it-yourself Activities: The German Case," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 164(4): 701-722.
  • Busato, F. and Chiarini, B. (2004). "Market and Underground Activities in a Two-sector Dynamic Equilibrium Model," Economic Theory, 23(4): 863-861.
  • Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural Equation Modelling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Chatterjee, S., Chaudhury K., and Schneider, F. (2006). "The Size and Development of the Indian Shadow Economy and a Comparison with 18 other Asian Countries: An Empirical Investigation,"Forthcoming in the Journal of Development Economics.
  • Cziraky, D. (2004). "LISREL 8.54: A Program for Structural Equation Modelling with Latent Variables,"Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19: 135-141.
  • ------, (2005). "A Unifying Statistical Framework for Dynamic Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables." Available [online at]: http://stats.lse.ac.uk/ciraki/framework.pdf.
  • Dell'Anno, R. (2003). "Estimating the Shadow Economy in Italy: A Structural Equation Approach,"Discussion Paper, Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Salerno.
  • Dell'Anno, R. and Schneider, F. (2009). "A Complex Approach to Estimate the Shadow Economy: The Structural Equation Modelling," in M. Faggini and T. Lux (eds.), Coping with the Complexity of Economics: 110-130. Heidelberg: Springer Publishing Company.
  • Elgin, C. (2012). "Cyclicality of Shadow Economy," Economic Papers, 31 (4): 478-490.
  • Elgin, C. and Oztunali, O. (2012). "Shadow Economies around the World: Model Based Estimates,"Bogazici University Working Papers 2012-05.
  • Feld, L.P. and Schneider, F. (2010). "Survey on the Shadow Economy and Undeclared Earnings in OECD Countries," German Economic Review 11(2): 109-149.
  • Frey, B.S. and Weck H.H. (1983). "Estimating the Shadow Economy: A Naive Approach," Oxford Economic Papers, 35: 23-44.
  • Giles, David, E.A. (1999a). "Measuring the Hidden Economy: Implications for Econometric Modelling,"The Economic Journal, 109(456): 370-380.
  • ------, (1999b): "Modelling the Hidden Economy in the Tax-Gap in New Zealand," Empirical Economics,24(4): 621-640.
  • ------, (1999c). "The Rise and Fall of the New Zealand Underground Economy: Are the Reasons Symmetric?," Applied Economic Letters, 6: 185-189.
  • Giles, David, E.A. and Tedds, L.M. (2002a). "Taxes and the Canadian Underground Economy," Canadian Tax Paper No. 106, Canadian Tax Foundation, Toronto/Ontario.
  • ------, (2002b). "Response," Canadian Tax Journal, 50(5): 1662-1667
  • Giles, David, E.A., Tedds, L.M., and Werkneh, G. (2002). "The Canadian Underground and Measured Economies," Applied Economics, 34(4): 2347-2352.
  • Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural Equation Modelling with LISREL. Essentials and Advances. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Hoyle, R.H. (ed.) (1995). Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Ihrig, J. and Moe, K. (2004). "Lurking in the Shadows: The Informal Sector and Government Policy,"Journal of Development Economics, 73: 541-77.
  • Maruyama, G.M. (1997). Basic of Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Muthen, B.O. (2002). "Beyond SEM: General Latent Variable Modeling," Behaviormetrika, 29: 81-117.
  • Pickhardt, M. and Sardà Pons, J. (2006). "Size and Scope of the Shadow Economy in Germany," Applied Economics, 38(4): 1707-1713.
  • Roca, J.C.C., Moreno, C.D., and Sanchez, J.E.G. (2001). "Underground Economy and Aggregate Fluctuations," Spanish Economic Review, 31: 41-53.
  • Schneider, F. (2005). "Shadow Economies around the World: What Do We Really Know?," European Journal of Political Economy, 21(3): 598-642.
  • ------, (2007): "Shadow Economies and Corruption all Over the World: New Estimates for 145 Countries," Economics, 1: 1-66.
  • Schneider, F. (eds.), (2011). Handbook on the Shadow Economy, Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing Company.
  • ------, (2013) "Size and Development of the Shadow Economy of 31 European and 5 other OECD Countries from 2003 to 2013: A Further Decline," Discussion Paper, Department of Economics,University of Linz, Linz, Austria.
  • Schneider, F. and Enste, D. (2000). ,,Shadow Economies: Size, Causes and Consequences," Journal of Economic Literature, 38(1): 73-110.
  • Schneider, F. and Williams, C.C. (2013). "The Shadow Economy," IEA (The Institute of Economic Affairs), London.
  • Schneider, F., Buehn, A., and Montenegro, C.E. (2010). "Shadow Economies All over the World: New Estimates for 162 Countries from 1999 to 2007," (Revised Version): 9-13. World Bank Discussion Paper.
  • Thomas, J.J. (1999). "Quantifying the Black Economy: Measurement without Theory Yet Again?,"The Economic Journal, 109(456): 381-389.
  • Weck, H.H. (1983). Schattenwirtschaft: Eine Möglichkeit zur Einschränkung der öffentlichen Verwaltung? Eine ökonomische Analyse, Bern/Frankfurt: Lang.
APA ELGİN C, SCHNEİDER F (2016). Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. , 51 - 75.
Chicago ELGİN Ceyhun,SCHNEİDER Friedrich Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. (2016): 51 - 75.
MLA ELGİN Ceyhun,SCHNEİDER Friedrich Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. , 2016, ss.51 - 75.
AMA ELGİN C,SCHNEİDER F Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. . 2016; 51 - 75.
Vancouver ELGİN C,SCHNEİDER F Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. . 2016; 51 - 75.
IEEE ELGİN C,SCHNEİDER F "Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches." , ss.51 - 75, 2016.
ISNAD ELGİN, Ceyhun - SCHNEİDER, Friedrich. "Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches". (2016), 51-75.
APA ELGİN C, SCHNEİDER F (2016). Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, 30(1), 51 - 75.
Chicago ELGİN Ceyhun,SCHNEİDER Friedrich Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies 30, no.1 (2016): 51 - 75.
MLA ELGİN Ceyhun,SCHNEİDER Friedrich Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, vol.30, no.1, 2016, ss.51 - 75.
AMA ELGİN C,SCHNEİDER F Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies. 2016; 30(1): 51 - 75.
Vancouver ELGİN C,SCHNEİDER F Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies. 2016; 30(1): 51 - 75.
IEEE ELGİN C,SCHNEİDER F "Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches." Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, 30, ss.51 - 75, 2016.
ISNAD ELGİN, Ceyhun - SCHNEİDER, Friedrich. "Shadow Economies in OECD Countries: DGE vs. MIMIC Approaches". Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies 30/1 (2016), 51-75.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 1:33

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