Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The correlation between a government’s expenditure and revenue has attracted a lot of interest thanks to its policy relevance. This paper delves into the fiscal adjustment process through the expenditure and the revenue of Sri Lanka in the post-reform era from 1979 to 2009. The Augmented Dickey–Fuller study for the unit root testifies that both expenditure and revenue in Sri Lanka over the period have been I(0) stationary. The vector autoregression (VAR) model along with innovation accounting show that one-year lagged revenue leads to a rise in government expenditure in the next period. Revenue innovations also have a significant role in changing the expenditure profile. These findings uphold the tax-and-spend approach as the prevalent feature of the Sri Lankan economy’s fiscal system over the period of this study. Therefore, fiscal adjustments based on the revenue side of the budget need to be analysed.

Keywords

Tax-and-Spend Spend-and-Tax Fiscal Synchronisation Revenue Considerations Vector Autoregression Innovation Accounting JEL Classification: H20 JEL Classification: H50 JEL Classification: C32 JEL Classification: C51

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, W. , Wallace, M.S. , & Warner, J.T. (1986). Government spending and taxation: What causes what? Southern Economic Journal, 52(3), 630–39.

Baghestani, H. , & McNown, R. (1984). Do revenue-expenditures respond to budgetary disequilibria? Southern Economic Journal, 61(2), 311–22.

Barro, R.J. (1979). On the determination of public debt, Journal of Political Economy, 87(5), 940–71.

Barro, R.J. (1989). The Ricardian approach to budget deficits, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(2), 37–54.

Blackley, P.R. (1986). Causality between revenues and expenditures and size of the federal budget, Public Finance Quarterly, 14(2), 139–56.

Buchanan, J. , & Wagner, R. (1977) Democracy in deficit: The political legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press.

Buchanan, James M. , & Wagner, Richard E. (ed.). (1978) Fiscal responsibility in constitutional democracy. Leiden, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division.

Buchanan, J.M. , & Wagner, R.W. (1978). Dialogues concerning fiscal religion, Journal of Monetary Economics, 4(3), 627–36.

Chowdhury, A.R. (1988). Expenditure and receipts in state and local government finances: Comment, Public Choice, 59(3), 277–85.

10.

Darrat, A.F. (1998). Tax and spend, or spend and tax? An enquiry into the Turkish budgetary process. Southern Economic Journal, 64(4): 940–56.

11.

Dhanasekaran, K. (2001). Government tax revenue, expenditure and causality: The experience of India, Indian Economic Review, XXXVI(2), 359–79.

12.

Dickey, D.A. , & Fuller, D.A. (1981). The likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root, Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–72.

13.

Dore, Ousmane, & Nachega, Jean-Claude (2000). Budgetary convergence in the WAEMU: Adjustment through revenue or expenditure? IMF Working Paper, WP/00/109, International Monetary Fund.

14.

Friedman, Milton (1978). The limitations of tax limitation, Policy Review, 5(78), 7–14.

15.

George, H. , & Papapetrou, Evangelia (1996). An examination of the causal relationship between government spending and revenue: A cointegration analysis. Public Choice, 89(3–4), 363–74.

16.

von Furstenberg , George M. , Green, R. Jeffery , & Jeong, Jin-Ho (1986). Tax-and spend or spend-and-tax, Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(2), 179–88.

17.

Islam, M.Q. (2001). Structural break.unit root, and the causality between government expenditure and revenues, Applied Economics Letters, 8(8), 556–67.

18.

Jones, J.D. , & Joulfaian, D. (1991). Federal government expenditure and revenue in the early years of the Republic: Evidence from 1792–1860, Journal of Macroeconomics, 13(1), 133–55.

19.

Joulfaian, D. , & Mookerjee, R. (1990). The government revenue expenditure nexus: Evidence from a state, Public Finance Quarterly, XVIII(1), 92–103.

20.

Maitra, B. (2009). Expenditure consideration in fiscal management in the economy of Pakistan—An econometric enquiry, International Journal of Economic Research, 6(2), 213–35.

21.

Manage, N. , & Marlow, M.L. (1986). The causal relation between federal expenditures and receipts. Southern Economic Journal, 52(3): 617–19.

22.

Marlow, M.L. , & Manage, N. (1988). Expenditure and receipts of state and local government finances: Reply, Public Choice, 59(3), 277–85.

23.

Meltzer, A.H. , & Richard, S. (1981). A rational size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5): 914–27.

24.

Miller, S.M. , & Russek, E.S. (1990). Co-integration and error-correction models: The temporal causality between government taxes and spending. Southern Economic Journal, 57(1): 221–29.

25.

Musgrave, Richard A. (1969). Principals of budget determination in the public economy. In William Henderson and Helen Cameron (eds), An introduction to government finances. New York: Random House.

26.

Narayan, P.K. (2005). The government revenue and government expenditure nexus: Empirical evidence from nine Asian countries, Journal of Asian Economics, 15(6), 1203–16.

27.

Narayan, P.K. , & Narayan, S. (2006). Government revenue and government expenditure nexus: Evidence from developing countries, Applied Economics, 38(3), 285–91.

28.

Peacock, Alan T. , & Wiseman, Jack (1961) The growth of public expenditure in the United Kingdom. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

29.

Provopoulos, G. , & Zambaras, A. (1991). Testing for causality between government spending and taxation. Public Choice, 68(1/3), 277–82.

30.

Ram, Rati (1988). Additional evidence on causality between government revenue and government expenditure, Southern Economic Journal, 54(3), 763–69.

Tax-and-Spend Principle in Budget Management in Sri Lanka in the Post-reform Period

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References