Understanding the revenue–expenditure nexus is the core essence of this research in the Pakistani context. This research examines the non-linear relationship between government revenues and government expenditures during 1972–2014. The recently developed non-linear co-integration technique has been used along with the symmetry test. The result shows that the revenues and expenditures have co-integration and provide the evidence in favour of fiscal synchronization hypothesis in the budgetary process. Moreover, the finding also reveals that the relationship between these two fiscal elements is asymmetric and negative changes in revenues and expenditures have a greater impact than the positive ones. Furthermore, another important aspect that was revealed during the study was that the negative shocks in the revenues will lead towards the drastically large increase in the expenditure.
AbelA.BernankeB.CroushoreD. (2008). Macroeconomics(6th ed.). Prentice Hall India.
2.
AfonsoA.RaultC. (2015). Multi-step analysis of public finances sustainability. Economic Modelling, 48, 199–209.
3.
ApergisN.PayneJ. E.SaunorisJ. W. (2012). Tax-spend nexus in Greece: Are there asymmetries? Journal of Economic Studies, 39(3), 327–336. doi:10.1108/01443581211245900
4.
AthanasenasA.KatrakilidisC.TrachanasE. (2014). Government spending and revenues in the Greek economy: evidence from nonlinear cointegration. Empirica, 41(2), 365–376.
5.
BaghestaniH.McnownR. (1994). Do revenues or expenditures respond to budgetary disequilibria? Southern Economic Journal, 61(2), 311–322. doi:10.2307/1059979
6.
BröthalerJ.GetznerM. (2015). The tax-spend debate and budgetary policy in Austria. International Advances in Economic Research, 21(3), 299–315. doi:10.1007/s11294-015-9532-1
7.
DarratA. F. (1998). Tax and spend, or spend and tax? An inquiry into the Turkish budgetary process. Southern Economic Journal, 64(4), 940–956. doi:10.2307/1061212
8.
DickeyD. A.FullerW. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American statistical association, 74(366a), 427–431.
9.
FarzaneganM. R. (2011). Oil revenue shocks and government spending behavior in Iran. Energy Economics, 33(6), 1055–1069.
10.
GemmellN.KnellerR.SanzI. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: spending versus revenue decentralization. Economic Inquiry, 51(4), 1915–1931.
11.
GharteyE. E. (2010). Cointegration and causal relationship between taxes and spending for Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. International Economic Journal, 24(2), 267–282. doi:10.1080/10168730903510674
12.
Gil-AlanaL. A. (2008). Government expenditures and revenues: Evidence of fractional cointegration in an asymmetric modeling. International Advances in Economic Research, 15(2), 143–155. doi:10.1007/s11294-008-9198-z
13.
GogasP.PragidisI. (2015). Are there asymmetries in fiscal policy shocks? Journal of Economic Studies, 42(2), 303–321.
14.
GrangerC. W.YoonG. (2002). Hidden cointegration. University of California, Economics Working Paper, (2002–02).
15.
HasanM.LincolnI. (1997). Tax then spend or spend then tax? Experience in the UK, 1961–93. Applied Economics Letters, 4(4), 237–239. doi:10.1080/758518502
16.
IqbalN.MalikW. S.GhaniE. (2010). Budget Balance through Revenue or Spending Adjustment: Evidence from Pakistan [with Comments]. The Pakistan Development Review, 49(4), 611–630.
17.
KatrakilidisC.TrachanasE. (2012). What drives housing price dynamics in Greece: New evidence from asymmetric ARDL cointegration. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1064–1069.
18.
LegrenziG.MilasC. (2012). Nonlinearities and the sustainability of the government’s intertemporal budget constraint. Economic Inquiry, 50(4), 988–999. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2011.00402.x
19.
LusinyanL.ThorntonJ. (2012). The intertemporal relation between government revenue and expenditure in the United Kingdom, 1750 to 2004. Applied Economics, 44(18), 2321–2333. doi:10.1080/00036846.2011.564142
20.
MaitraB. (2011). Tax-and-spend principle in budget management in Sri Lanka in the post-reform period. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, 5(3), 343–359. doi:10.1177/097380101100500303
21.
NarayanP. K. (2005). The government revenue and government expenditure nexus: Empirical evidence from nine Asian countries. Journal of Asian Economics, 15(6), 1203–1216. doi:10.1016/j.asieco.2004.11.007
22.
NarayanP. K.NarayanS. (2006). Government revenue and government expenditure nexus: Evidence from developing countries. Applied Economics, 38(3), 285–291. doi:10.1080/00036840500369209
23.
OuattaraB. (2004). Modelling the long run determinants of private investment in Senegal(No. 04/05). Credit Research Paper.
24.
OwoyeO. (1995). The causal relationship between taxes and expenditures in the G7 countries: Cointegration and error-correction models. Applied Economics Letters, 2(1), 19–22. doi:10.1080/135048595357744
25.
OwoyeO.OnafoworaO. A. (2010). The relationship between tax revenues and government expenditures in European Union and non-European Union OECD countries. Public Finance Review, 39(3), 429–461. doi:10.1177/1091142110386211
26.
PaleologouS.-M. (2013). Asymmetries in the revenue–expenditure nexus: A tale of three countries. Economic Modelling, 30, 52–60. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2012.09.022
27.
PayneJ. E.MohammadiH.CakM. (2008). Turkish budget deficit sustainability and the revenue-expenditure nexus. Applied Economics, 40(7), 823–830. doi:10.1080/00036840600749904
28.
PesaranB.PesaranM. H. (2009). Microfit 5.0. Oxford University Press.
29.
PesaranM. H.ShinY.SmithR. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621–634.
30.
PesaranM. H.ShinY.SmithR. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of applied econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.
31.
QaziW.RazaS. A.SharifA. (2017). Higher education development and unemployment in Pakistan: Evidence from structural break testing. Global Business Review, 18(5), 1089–1100.
32.
RazaS. A.AfshanS. (2017). Determinants of exchange rate in Pakistan: Revisited with structural break testing. Global Business Review, 18(4), 825–848.
33.
RichterC.DimitriosP. (2013). Tax and spend, spend and tax, fiscal synchronisation or institutional separation? Examining the case of Greece. Romanian Journal of Fiscal Policy, 4(2), 1.
34.
SaunorisJ. W.PayneJ. E. (2010). Tax more or spend less? Asymmetries in the UK revenue–expenditure nexus. Journal of Policy Modeling, 32(4), 478–487. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.05.012
35.
SchorderetY. (2003). Asymmetric cointegration. Genève: Université de Genève/Faculté des sciences économiques et sociales.
36.
SharifA.Afshan (2018). Does military spending impede income inequality? A comparative study of India and Pakistan. Global Business Review, 19(2), 257–279.
37.
ShinH. S.ThakM. J.KimH. J. (2011). Nonlinear model predictive control for multiple UAVs formation using passive sensing. International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 12(1), 16–23.
38.
SoguelN.EcabertC. (2015). Do nasty and pleasant surprises regarding tax revenue explain spending drifts? The case of the Swiss cantons. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(4), 282–296.
39.
TrachanasE.KatrakilidisC. (2013). Fiscal deficits under financial pressure and insolvency: Evidence for Italy, Greece and Spain. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35(5), 730–749. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2013.03.013
40.
VamvoukasG. A. (2012). Panel data modelling and the tax-spend controversy in the Euro zone. Applied Economics, 44(31), 4073–4085. doi:10.1080/00036846.2011.587777
41.
WesterlundJ.MahdaviS.FirooziF. (2011). The tax-spending nexus: Evidence from a panel of US state–local governments. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 885–890.
42.
ZapfM.PayneJ. E. (2009). Asymmetric modelling of the revenue-expenditure nexus: Evidence from aggregate state and local government in the US. Applied Economics Letters, 16(9), 871–876. doi:10.1080/13504850701222095
