IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i15p11836-d1208345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade Openness and Sustainable Government Size: Evidence from Central and Eastern European Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmet Tekin

    (Department of Public Finance, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir 26040, Turkey)

  • İbrahim Tuğrul Çınar

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics, Anadolu University, Eskisehir 26470, Turkey)

  • Ersin Nail Sağdıç

    (Department of Public Finance, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kutahya Dumlupinar University, Kutahya 43000, Turkey)

  • Fazlı Yıldız

    (Department of Public Finance, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Balikesir University, Balikesir 10000, Turkey)

Abstract

The ongoing discussion regarding the role of the free market economy and the extent of state intervention is a critical subject in economics. This matter holds special significance for transition economies, as it presents both challenges and opportunities in such contexts. One may perceive the degree of trade openness as a path toward welfare societies. However, the dual impacts of trade openness on an economy, namely, the compensation and efficiency hypotheses, must be considered. The compensation hypothesis proposes that global trade can enhance the economic influence of the state, whereas the efficiency hypothesis advocates for a contraction in the state’s economic undertakings. This study focuses on interpreting this complex scenario, specifically in the context of the European Union’s transition economies. The aim of this research is to uncover how the economic magnitude of a nation influences trade liberalization, and consequently the free market economy, in Central and East European (CCE) countries, using public choice theory as a foundation. The research delves into the causal relationship between trade openness and government size in eleven CCE countries—Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia. The period covered in this study ranges from 1996 to 2021. The methodological tool utilized for this investigation is the Kónya bootstrap Granger causality test, which accommodates cross-sectional dependence and country-specific variances. The novelty of this study lies in its application of both the compensation and efficiency hypotheses to the context of 11 transition economies in the Central and Eastern European (CCE) region. The results from the Granger causality test demonstrate a unidirectional positive correlation between trade openness and the size of the government for Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, and Estonia. On the contrary, Slovenia exhibited a unidirectional negative correlation. These findings confirm the applicability of the compensation hypothesis in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, and Estonia, while supporting the efficiency hypothesis in Slovenia.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmet Tekin & İbrahim Tuğrul Çınar & Ersin Nail Sağdıç & Fazlı Yıldız, 2023. "Trade Openness and Sustainable Government Size: Evidence from Central and Eastern European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11836-:d:1208345
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11836/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11836/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shelton, Cameron A., 2007. "The size and composition of government expenditure," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(11-12), pages 2230-2260, December.
    2. M. Hashem Pesaran & Aman Ullah & Takashi Yamagata, 2008. "A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 11(1), pages 105-127, March.
    3. Dong-Hyeon Kim & Yu-Bo Suen & Shu-Chin Lin & Joyce Hsieh, 2018. "Government size, government debt and globalization," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(25), pages 2792-2803, May.
    4. Hashem Pesaran, M. & Yamagata, Takashi, 2008. "Testing slope homogeneity in large panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 50-93, January.
    5. Kar, Muhsin & NazlIoglu, Saban & AgIr, Hüseyin, 2011. "Financial development and economic growth nexus in the MENA countries: Bootstrap panel granger causality analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1-2), pages 685-693, January.
    6. Cameron, David R., 1978. "The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(4), pages 1243-1261, December.
    7. Faqin Lin & Bing Li & Nicholas C. S. Sim, 2014. "Trade openness and government size of small developing countries," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 22(4), pages 783-808, October.
    8. Ram, Rati, 2009. "Openness, country size, and government size: Additional evidence from a large cross-country panel," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 213-218, February.
    9. Larissa Batrancea & Marcel Ciprian Pop & Malar Maran Rathnaswamy & Ioan Batrancea & Mircea-Iosif Rus, 2021. "An Empirical Investigation on the Transition Process toward a Green Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Michael P Devereux, 2007. "Developments in the Taxation of Corporate Profit in the OECD since 1965: Rates, Bases and Revenues," Working Papers 0704, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.
    11. Dani Rodrik, 1998. "Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(5), pages 997-1032, October.
    12. Eiji Fujii, 2017. "Government Size, Trade Openness, and Output Volatility: A Case of fully Integrated Economies," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 661-684, September.
    13. Liberati, Paolo, 2007. "Trade Openness, Capital Openness and Government Size," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 215-247, August.
    14. René Cabral, 2016. "Openness and Mexico's subnational governments size: Evidence from a panel of Mexican states," Contaduría y Administración, Accounting and Management, vol. 61(4), pages 762-776, Octubre-D.
    15. Helder Ferreira de Mendonça & Ana Jordânia de Oliveira, 2019. "Openness and government size: A new empirical assessment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 982-995.
    16. Swamy, P A V B, 1970. "Efficient Inference in a Random Coefficient Regression Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 38(2), pages 311-323, March.
    17. T. S. Breusch & A. R. Pagan, 1980. "The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 239-253.
    18. Alena Kimakova, 2009. "Government size and openness revisited: the case of financial globalization," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 394-406, August.
    19. Paolo Epifani & Gino Gancia, 2009. "Openness, Government Size and the Terms of Trade," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(2), pages 629-668.
    20. Kevin Williams, 2021. "Does national income mediate the relationship between trade and government size?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(6), pages 3029-3057, December.
    21. Frank Balle & Ashish Vaidya, 2002. "A regional analysis of openness and government size," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(5), pages 289-292.
    22. Vianna, Andre C. & Mollick, Andre V., 2018. "Government size and openness: Evidence from the commodity boom in Latin America," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 318-328.
    23. Kueh, Jerome Swee-Hui & Puah, Chin-Hong & Wong, Chiew-Meu, 2008. "Bounds Estimation for Trade Openness and Government Expenditure Nexus of ASEAN-4 Countries," MPRA Paper 12351, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    24. Benarroch, Michael & Pandey, Manish, 2012. "The relationship between trade openness and government size: Does disaggregating government expenditure matter?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 239-252.
    25. Simon Loretz, 2008. "Corporate taxation in the OECD in a wider context," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(4), pages 639-660, winter.
    26. Sohrab Abizadeh, 2005. "An analysis of government expenditure and trade liberalization," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(16), pages 1881-1884.
    27. Jetter, Michael & Parmeter, Christopher F., 2015. "Trade openness and bigger governments: The role of country size revisited," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 49-63.
    28. Adserà , Alícia & Boix, Carles, 2002. "Trade, Democracy, and the Size of the Public Sector: The Political Underpinnings of Openness," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 229-262, April.
    29. Muhammad Islam, 2004. "The long run relationship between openness and government size: evidence from bounds test," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(9), pages 995-1000.
    30. Brown, David S. & Hunter, Wendy, 1999. "Democracy and Social Spending in Latin America, 1980–92," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 779-790, December.
    31. Ma, Yong & Yao, Chi, 2022. "Openness and government size: Revisiting the relationship using a large cross-country panel," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 448-465.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erkam Sari & Hakan Hotunluoglu, 2021. "Government Size and Openness: Insights Basedon Country Classifications," World Journal of Applied Economics, WERI-World Economic Research Institute, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Tayfur BAYAT,, 2017. "The Validity Of Efficiency And Compensation Hypothesis For G7 Countries," EcoForum, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 6(2), pages 1-2, july.
    3. Kevin Williams, 2021. "Does national income mediate the relationship between trade and government size?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(6), pages 3029-3057, December.
    4. Muhammad Zakaria & Samreen Shakoor, 2011. "Relationship Between Government Size and Trade Openness: Evidence from Pakistan," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 18(2), pages 328-341, December.
    5. Edward Anderson & Samuel Obeng, 2021. "Globalisation and government spending: Evidence for the ‘hyper‐globalisation’ of the 1990s and 2000s," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(5), pages 1144-1176, May.
    6. Tushar Bharati & Mohammad Farhad & Michael Jetter, 2023. "On the relationship between trade openness and government size," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(7), pages 2102-2133, July.
    7. Vikas Dixit, 2014. "Relation between Trade Openness, Capital Openness and Government Size in India," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 49(1), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Ma, Yong & Yao, Chi, 2022. "Openness and government size: Revisiting the relationship using a large cross-country panel," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 448-465.
    9. Benarroch, Michael & Pandey, Manish, 2012. "The relationship between trade openness and government size: Does disaggregating government expenditure matter?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 239-252.
    10. McCloud, Nadine & Delgado, Michael S. & Holmes, Chanit'a, 2018. "Does a stronger system of law and order constrain the effects of foreign direct investment on government size?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 258-283.
    11. Helder Ferreira de Mendonça & Ana Jordânia de Oliveira, 2019. "Openness and government size: A new empirical assessment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 982-995.
    12. Estela Sáenz & Marcela Sabaté & M. Gadea, 2013. "Trade openness and public expenditure. The Spanish case, 1960–2000," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 173-195, March.
    13. Ostry, Jonathan D. & Espinoza, Raphael & Zhang, Xiaoxiao, 2019. "Globalization, Redistribution, and the Size of Government," CEPR Discussion Papers 14137, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Dong-Hyeon Kim & Yu-Bo Suen & Shu-Chin Lin & Joyce Hsieh, 2018. "Government size, government debt and globalization," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(25), pages 2792-2803, May.
    15. Stéphane Mbiankeu Nguea, 2020. "Openness and Government Size in Sub-Saharan African countries," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 2669-2676.
    16. Erauskin, Iñaki & Turnovsky, Stephen J., 2020. "Financial globalization and its consequences for productive government expenditure," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    17. María Franco Chuaire & Carlos Scartascini & Mariano Tommasi, 2017. "State capacity and the quality of policies. Revisiting the relationship between openness and government size," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 133-156, July.
    18. Iñaki Erauskin & Stephen J. Turnovsky, 2019. "Financial Globalization and the Increase in the Size of Government: Are They Related?," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 219-253, April.
    19. Khalil Ahmad & Amjad Ali & Michael Yang, 2022. "The Effect Of Trade Liberalization On Expenditure Structure Of Pakistan," Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 11(1), pages 73-84, March.
    20. Vianna, Andre C. & Mollick, Andre V., 2018. "Government size and openness: Evidence from the commodity boom in Latin America," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 318-328.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11836-:d:1208345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.