Effects of Taxes on the Development of the Non-Oil Industry
Sector: The Case of Azerbaijan
SHAFA ALIYEV1,2,3a, MAYIS GULALIYEV2,3,4, SHAHIN HURSHUDOV5, AFET HASANOVA2,
FARIZ SALAHOV6
1Sumgait State University,
Sumgait,
AZERBAIJAN
2Azerbaijan State University of Economics (UNEC),
Baku,
AZERBAIJAN
3Western Caspian University,
Baku,
AZERBAIJAN
4Azerbaijan Technological University,
Ganja,
AZERBAIJAN
5Ganja State University,
Ganja,
AZERBAIJAN
6Institute of Economics of Azerbaijan Science and Education Ministry,
Baku,
AZERBAIJAN
aORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4997-7563
Abstract: - A panel analysis of the relationship between corporate tax rates and GDP per capita, economic
growth rate, total capital formation, and non-oil product volume proves that these variables' dependency on
corporate tax rates is weaker. The main finding of the study is that there is a negative relationship between the
volume of non-oil industrial products and taxes in Azerbaijan. Based on the results of the research, it can be
argued that neither corporate taxes nor general taxes have a significant impact on the production volume of
non-oil industrial products in Azerbaijan in the short term. However, there is a negative relationship between
taxes and the volume of production of non-oil industrial products in the long run.
Key-Words: - taxes, corporate tax rates, economic growth, total capital formation, non-oil products
Received: April 19, 2023. Revised: October 2, 2023. Accepted: October 14, 2023. Published: October 27, 2023.
1 Introduction
The history of state intervention in the economy
almost coincides with the history of economic
theory. Since the 18th century, there have been
different approaches regarding the necessity or harm
of such intervention. However, depending on the
trend of economic development, the investigation of
this problem and the obtained results were different.
The return to the problem of state intervention in the
economy in any period was related to the existing
problems in the economy in that period. As a result
of this, the economic crisis that occurred in the 30s
of the last century made the discussion of the state's
intervention in the economy more relevant. J.M.
Keynes justified the importance of state intervention
in the economy within certain limits. Although the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2400
Volume 20, 2023
application of Keynes’s theory in the formation of
new economic policy ensured rapid development in
various countries, especially in developed countries,
in the late 20th century, the tendency of the state to
interfere in the economy was reinforced by neo-
classicists. However, the financial crisis of 2008
made it more urgent to examine the state's
intervention in the economy at a certain level.
An analysis of a large number of studies
conducted on state intervention in the economy
suggests that no economist insists that the state
should be absolutely outside the economy. No
researcher claims that it is possible to carry out
economic activity without any state intervention,
e.g., without the emission of money. The classics,
who claimed the absence of state intervention in the
economy, did not question the existence of money
in economic activity. However, if the state prints
money, the state already intervenes in the economy
to a certain extent. It is more important not to
discuss whether the state "interferes" or "does not"
in the economy, but it is important to examine "how
much" and "in what forms" it intervenes. That is, is
the intervention through taxes, or intervention in the
form of increasing the level of state
entrepreneurship, public purchases, public
investments, price regulation, licensing restrictions,
and other forms more effective? Similar questions
can be greatly increased.
The intervention of the state in the economy
through taxes is very old in its history. It can be said
that there is enough information about the collection
of taxes in kind in the history of almost all
countries. However, the types and amounts of taxes
have always been different from country to country.
Each state has changed its tax policy regularly. Even
after the formation of economic science, discussions
about the type and volume of taxes have always
been the subject of serious scientific research. As
we mentioned above, the fact that taxes are the
focus of attention as an object of research is because
it is the main source of income for the state.
Collected taxes allow the state to perform its
functions, for example, defense, development of
education, health care, provision of living for the
elderly population, disabled people, etc.
The fact that the revenues collected from taxes
have a major share in government spending, at first
sight, suggests that the more such revenues, the
greater the financial capacity of the state to perform
its functions. However, considering that tax
revenues come from individuals or business entities
engaged in economic activity, and if the number of
entities is not increased, increasing such revenues
reduces the profits of economic entities. This may
indirectly create new problems for the development
of the economy. Such dual nature of taxes is widely
analyzed in economic theory and empirical studies.
The studies that conduct a cross-country
comparative analysis on the relationship between
taxation and economic growth, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5],
allow us to conclude that income and corporate
taxes are important instruments in the country's
economic development.
2 Literature Review
Both in economic theory and in empirical research
on the problem, the macroeconomic effects of taxes,
especially the effects on economic growth, give
different results. Thus, the mechanism and result of
the effects of taxes on economic growth are
different in the theory of exogenous and endogenous
growth. The results of empirical studies performed
in different countries vary from country to country.
According to the Solow-Swan model, which is
the main model of exogenous growth theory, taxes
do not affect the equilibrium level of the economy.
In the long run, the effects of taxes on economic
growth are neutral. In the Solow model, the main
determinant of economic growth is technological
development, and taxes do not affect growth.
However, taxes affect the level of production
volume. Thus, according to the Solow model, taxes
have an output level effect rather than an output
growth effect. Considering that the Solow model of
economic growth is the most widespread model
related to this problem, we can note that the
economic theory does not take into account the two
poles of the impact of taxes on the economy. The
bipolarity in the essence of any economic indicator
means that there is an optimal value of this indicator
for economic growth or state of well-being. The
optimal value for two opposite poles should be
chosen so that the dual nature of this indicator can
be used most effectively. The fact that
macroeconomic models related to taxes still cannot
fully cover the real economy once again confirms
that the economic system is extremely complex and
any model can cover only a limited number of
elements of this complex system. Of course,
research in this field is continuously conducted and
the obtained results are developed. According to the
approach of some researchers, such as, [6], [7], [8],
[9], and others, taxes can have a negative effect on
the economy because they reduce the income at the
disposal of individuals and business entities. In,
[10], the authors claim that taxes not only have an
effect on economic growth but also distinguish five
mechanisms by which such effects are realized: 1) a
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2401
Volume 20, 2023
decrease in the propensity to invest; 2) a reduction
in the labor supply; 3) decrease in growth
productivity; 4) decrease in the marginal
productivity of capital; 5) decrease in efficiency of
human capital use.
As we mentioned above, taxes have a dual
nature, unlike some forms of government
intervention. Its increase allows the government to
obtain the necessary funds to perform its functions.
On the other hand, the increase in taxes reduces the
profits of businesses and businesses and creates
other negative effects. Some researchers believe that
the positive effects of taxes, including the
implementation of infrastructure projects by the
state from tax revenues, the expansion of the use of
such revenues for the development of education and
health care, and other issues indirectly create a
positive effect on the economy.
According to the Romer model, which is
considered one of the main models of endogenous
growth theory, taxes can affect economic growth in
the long term. In, [11], the authors argue that taxes
1) strengthen the sustainability of economic growth
and the global competitiveness of the economy; 2)
ensure fiscal stability and allow the collection of
funds important for social as well as physical
infrastructure; 3) reduce dependence on assistance
for the long term; 4) strengthens government
accountability and encourages good governance.
Theoretical issues of the effects of taxation on
economic growth and output have also been
explored by, [12]. The main conclusion of this study
is that taxation does not affect economic growth.
According to the theory of endogenous growth, the
effects of taxation on economic growth have been
studied by, [13], [14]. The results of these studies
are that taxation mainly affects the level of savings
of households and investments directed to human
capital and production through these mechanisms.
In, [15], the authors show that taxation has a
significant impact on the investment and innovation
decisions of business structures. Differences in
taxation policies between countries have some effect
on the differences between investments in physical
and human capital in firms belonging to these
countries.
Note that the variety of taxes is characterized by
their impact on economic growth at different levels.
The effects of some taxes on economic growth may
be felt more strongly than others. On the other hand,
the effects of taxes on economic growth also depend
on the economic situation in the country.
In the last 20 years, important steps have been
taken towards the liberalization of the economy in
Azerbaijan. Liberalization of foreign trade, [16],
banking sector, [17], [18], agricultural sector, [19],
service sector, and non-oil industrial sector has
greatly improved the business environment in the
country. However, the tax burden in Azerbaijan is
still high and creates certain difficulties for the
development of small and medium-sized businesses.
2.1 Empirical Results Regarding the Effects
of Taxes on Growth in the Non-Oil Industrial
Sector
Both theoretical and empirical studies prove that the
effects of corporate and capital taxes on economic
growth are stronger and more negative. Thus, the
increase in taxes hinders the development of capital
flow and innovation. Some studies, such as the
study by, [20], prove that reducing labor tax and
increasing VAT positively affect economic growth
in European Union countries.
A study conducted by, [21], assessed the effects
of tax policies on economic growth in Latin
American countries. They conclude that there is no
evidence that the effects of tax policy on economic
growth are positive, comparing the studies
conducted in the example of Latin America. In the
study, the effects of personal income tax, corporate
income tax, sales tax, value-added tax, and other
taxes on economic growth were evaluated
econometrically. As a method in the study, the
autoregression method was used, as well as a panel
analysis covering Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and
Chile. The main conclusion obtained is that the
effects of personal income tax on economic growth
in Latin America are not only negative but even
absent. As the main reason for this, researchers
explain that personal income taxes are very low and
the amount of collection is not high. On the other
hand, for some countries, the negative impact of
corporate income tax on economic growth was
included in the study. The effects of consumption
taxes on economic growth are positive.
In the study performed by, [22], the effects of
tax burden on economic growth were studied in the
example of European Union countries. In the study,
the effects of consumption, labor, and capital taxes
on economic growth in the 24 member states of the
EU in the period 1995-2010 were evaluated by
panel analysis. As a methodology, panel analyses
and Granger causality tests were used. The results of
empirical research on the positive effects of
consumption taxes on economic growth are
consistent with the theory. Also, the negative effects
of labor taxes on economic growth are empirically
confirmed. On the other hand, the relationship
between consumption tax and GDP is Granger and
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2402
Volume 20, 2023
bidirectional causality. However, the relationship
with the labor tax is one direction.
In the study conducted by, [23], in the case of
Nigeria, data covers the period 1994-2009. White's
test, Ramsey RESET test, Breusch Godfrey test,
Jacque Berra test, Augmented Dickey-Fuller test,
Johansen test, and Granger Causality test were used
during evaluations. The main conclusion of the
study is that the tax policy implemented in Nigeria
during the period 1994-2009 had a positive effect on
economic growth. Researchers believe that the
implemented tax policy not only increased the
government's income, but also caused an increase in
GDP, and then had a positive effect on the
improvement of the social condition of the
population in the country.
In the research, [24], the authors tried to
evaluate the effects of taxes on economic growth in
the long-term period 1980-2018, in addition to
conducting a comparative analysis of studies that
provide different results for Jordan. Based on the
available empirical results, they conclude that the
results of the studies performed in the example of
this country are inconclusive. Thus, in some studies,
positive results were obtained between taxes and
economic growth, and in some studies, negative
results were obtained. Achieving such different
results is most likely due to the methodologies
chosen for the study. In, [24], the authors used the
Autoregressive Distribution Lagged (ARDL)
method in their research. The conclusion is that
there is cointegration between economic growth and
taxes in the long run for Jordan. At the core of such
co-integration is the negative relationship between
these indicators.
A study by, [25], assessed the relationship
between oil revenue tax and economic growth in the
Nigerian economy, as well as the effects of
corporate income tax on economic growth and non-
oil revenue efficiency. The main data and
quantitative indicators used in the study were taken
from the statistical bulletin of the Central Bank of
the country, but some data were obtained by the
survey method. Multivariable regression analysis
was used during the evaluations. Estimates show
that for the Nigerian economy, there is a strong
correlation between tax on oil profits and economic
growth. There is also a strong relationship between
non-oil revenues and economic growth. However,
there is no relationship between income tax and
economic growth. The researchers suggest that the
government should improve tax administration and
try to increase the level of employment to expand
the tax base.
In, [26], the authors studied the effects of direct
and indirect taxes on economic growth in 27
member states of the European Union. The research
covered the period 1995-2010. During the research,
the tendency of tax burden distribution in the
member states was studied for 15 years. Then, the
effects of tax collection on economic growth were
investigated through regression analysis. The main
conclusion of the study is that it is more favorable to
use direct taxes in terms of supporting economic
growth.
A study by, [27], analyzed the effects of tax
policy on economic growth in the Republic of South
Africa. At this time, the Autoregressive Distribution
Lag (ADRL) model was used for the long-term
period covering the years 1981-2016. In this study,
it is empirically confirmed that the increase in taxes
in the example of South Africa has a negative effect
on economic growth. During the econometric
calculations, along with the economic growth
indicator, trade openness, and capital indicators
were also included in the model. Empirical analysis
shows that economic growth, taxes, capital, and
trade openness indicators are cointegrating
indicators. Considering the results obtained, the
researchers note that fiscal policy is important for
sustainable economic growth in South Africa.
In the study conducted by, [28], OECD
countries were taken as the object. The data for
analysis covers the years 2000-2011. In the study,
the effects of individual taxes on economic growth
were analyzed using the multivariable regression
method. In addition to economic growth and taxes,
capital accumulation, investment, human capital,
and technology indicators were also included in the
model. The neoclassical growth model was used as
a model. Using the panel analysis method, the
researcher empirically proves that corporate taxes
seriously hinder economic growth. Personal income
taxes also have a negative impact on economic
growth. The effects of property tax on economic
growth are not statistically significant. Considering
these results, the researcher suggests that OECD
countries should reduce corporate taxes and
personal income taxes. The loss of budget revenues
as a result of tax reduction can be compensated
through indirect taxes.
In the study conducted by, [29], the effects of
taxes on economic growth were empirically
analyzed in the example of Nigeria. At this time,
data covering the years 1980-2013 was used. The
long-term relationship between taxes and economic
growth was analyzed by both the Engle-Granger
cointegration test and the VEC model. The VEC
model was used for the relationship between these
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2403
Volume 20, 2023
indicators for the short-term period. Autocorrelation
and heteroskedasticity diagnostic tests were also
performed to check the adequacy of the model. The
obtained results confirm that there is a long-term
relationship between taxes and economic growth.
However, in the case of Nigeria, it is impossible to
confirm the existence of such a relationship for a
short-term period.
A study conducted by, [30], examined the
relationship between the marginal income tax rate
and economic growth. By conducting a panel
analysis based on data from 1965-2009 for 18
countries that are members of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, the
authors determined the existence of a relationship
between tax and economic growth.
Thus, a comparative analysis of the economic
literature related to empirical studies suggests that
the effects of taxes on economic growth are of
different natures in different countries. However, the
effects of direct taxes on economic growth are
negative for the long term in almost all countries.
Unfortunately, the study of this problem in the
example of Azerbaijan has not been carried out.
3 Methodology
Since oil rent is an important part of economic
growth in oil-rich countries, the impact of taxes on
the development of this sector is not noticeable. The
production and export of oil mainly take place based
on "production sharing agreements" or other types
of agreements signed between oil-rich countries and
multinational companies, and the terms of such
agreements are not affected by tax administration or
tax rate policies in local countries. Therefore, in our
study, we will involve non-oil-rich countries in a
panel analysis to determine the general trend to
determine the impact of taxes on economic growth.
The results obtained as a result of such an analysis
can allow the assessment of the effects of taxes on
the non-oil sector. We will get the information
related to the non-oil industrial sector for such
countries from the official database of the World
Bank, [31]. Information on corporate tax rates will
be obtained from the official website of the Tax
Foundation research group, [32]. To estimate the
effects of total tax rates and corporate taxes on
economic growth, as well as the volume of non-oil
industrial products, we will use double regression
equations:
   (1)
Here
- 1) GDP volume per person by country
(); 2) economic growth by country
(); 3) total capital formation by countries
(); 4) The volume of non-oil products by
country will be taken as ().  1)
total tax rate (󰇜; 2) will be charged as
corporate tax ().
In total, a) per capita GDP volume, b) economic
growth rate, c) total capital formation, and d)
production of non-oil industrial products 1) from
total taxes; 2) it is important to determine the
dependence on corporate tax rates and find optimal
tax rates for ensuring sustainable development in the
non-oil sector. To make such assessments, we will
use multivariate regression equations between the
indicators we mentioned:
 
 (2)
 
 (3)
  
(4)
 
 (5)
We will use equations (6) and (7) to model the
short-run and long-run effects of total taxes and
corporate taxes on the production volume of non-oil
industrial products.
  (6)
  (7)
It should be noted that the information on the
total tax rate was taken from the official website of
the World Bank, [33]. Gross tax rate refers to the
amount of taxes and mandatory payments payable
by businesses after taking into account deductions
and exemptions allowed as a share of commercial
profits. Other taxes that are withheld (such as
personal income tax) or collected and remitted to tax
authorities (such as value-added taxes, sales taxes,
or goods and services taxes) are not included in this
indicator. The study included former Soviet
countries without oil reserves. The main logic of
such a choice is that GDP in these countries is
generated from non-oil sectors and may depend to
one degree or another on the tax rate.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2404
Volume 20, 2023
First, let's try to quantify the effects of the total
tax rate on the volume of GDP, economic growth,
total capital formation, and the volume of non-oil
industrial production in the non-oil-rich former
Soviet republics. For this purpose, we will use (1) a
simple panel analysis. 1) total tax rate for these
countries; 2) corporate tax rate; 3) GDP volume; 4)
economic growth; 5) total capital formation and 6)
non-oil industrial products volume indicators will be
used. Despite the fact that these countries involved
in the study lived in the same economic and political
system for decades, the economic paths they chose
during the years of independence were completely
different. However, despite the fact that there are
serious differences with each other, a general trend
towards the reduction of taxes is also observed. In
all the countries involved in the study, both total
taxes and corporate taxes decreased significantly in
the period between 1996 and 2021. In that period,
the volume of GDP per capita has an increasing
trend in almost all of these countries. However, it is
noteworthy that the volume of GDP in the Baltic
countries is much higher than in other countries. In
the period covered by the research, the general
growth trend in the dynamics of the volume of non-
oil products is noticeable. To determine the
dependence of both the volume of GDP per capita
and the volume of production of non-oil products,
among other factors, on the tax rate.
3.1 Performing Unit Root Testing
It should be noted that it is important to check
whether the regression relationship between the
indicators is real. Thus, the rejection of the
hypotheses (i= 
󰇜in the 1st regression
equation or (i= 
󰇜in the 2nd
regression equation and " to avoid introducing
spurious” regression relationships into the model,
we need to check for time series stationarity of both
the dependent and independent variables. We will
perform the stationarity test using the Dickey-Fuller
test. At this time, all three options, i.e. 1) without
intersection and trend (
 ); 2)
where there is an intersection but no trend (
 ); 3) variants with both the cross-
section and the trend (
 ) will be considered. At this time, 
values calculated by, [34], will be taken as critical
values for t-statistics.
If the dependent and independent variables are
stationary, then the satisfaction of the hypothesis
(i= 
󰇜 for the regression relationship
between them will give us a reason to accept that the
relationship between them is not "deceptive". In this
case, the short-term adequacy of the connection can
be continuously checked with other tests. If the
stationarity of the dependent and independent
variables is confirmed, it is appropriate to check the
stationarity of their first variable (
) Alternatively,
testing for cointegration of the dependent and
independent variables may be appropriate. The
stationarity check for (
) is realized by the
procedure we mentioned above for
If the dependent and independent variables are
non-stationary, i.e. non-stationarity at level I(0), and
if their first variables are stationary, i.e. stationarity
at level I(1), rewrite equations (1), (2), and (3) for
the first variables it is more appropriate to build. If
there is no stationarity between I(0) and I(1) or if the
goal is to check the results of the research for a long
period, then it is more appropriate to check the
cointegration between these variables. In this case
1) absence of intersection and trend (
); 2) where there is an intersection, but
no trend (
); 3) variants with
both the cross-section and the trend (
) will be considered. At this
time critical values calculated, [35], are used as
critical values for t-statistics.
The cointegration test requires that the
stationarity of the time series  be confirmed
according to the regression equation
 for all three regression models given in
the first column of Table 2. If such stationarity
exists, then we will argue that there is cointegration
between
and and that these two-time series are
in regression dependence for the long run.
After checking the stationarity of the indicators
at the I(0) or I(1) level, as well as the presence of
cointegration between the dependent variable and
the independent variables, we will check the
autocorrelation of the independent variables with the
Durbin-Watson test, and if there is autocorrelation,
we will perform the necessary operations to
eliminate it in the model.
Depending on the purpose of the study, one or two-
way Granger causal relationships will then be tested.
4 Results
A panel analysis of the relationship between total
tax rates and per capita GDP volume, economic
growth rate, total capital formation, and non-oil
product volume is presented in Table 1. It can be
seen from the table that total tax rates have a
positive effect on GDP per capita. Of course, such a
dependence model is not as simple as in the double
regression equation (1). Thus, in this model, the
autocorrelation of the GDP per capita indicator is
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2405
Volume 20, 2023
large, and without eliminating it, an adequate model
cannot be imagined. At the same time, the effect of
the total tax rate on the per capita economic growth
indicator is also positive. However, this relationship
is not so strong. The effect of total taxes on total
capital formation is also not strong. Even the
coefficient of determination is at the level of 0.04.
That is why the dependence of total capital
formation on total taxes can be considered weak.
Such a weak dependence is also observed between
the total tax rates and the volume of non-oil
industrial products. Although the relationship
between these indicators
Hypothesis is not satisfied for both and
coefficients. However, the very small coefficient
of determination means that the relationship is not at
a significant level.
The fact that GDP volume, economic growth,
total capital formation, and volume of total non-oil
products do not depend on total tax rates leads to the
conclusion that taxes do not play a significant role
in the production function in these countries. On the
other hand, the positive coefficient in the
obtained results claims that the total tax rates are
less than optimal.
A panel analysis of the relationship between
corporate tax rates and per capita GDP volume,
economic growth rate, gross capital formation, and
non-oil product volume is presented in Table 2. It
can be seen from the table that the logarithm of
GDP volume per capita, economic growth, total
capital formation, and the volume of non-oil
industrial products depend on corporate tax rates.
According to the results of the balanced panel
analysis based on equation (1), the coefficient of
determination in the dependence of "volume of non-
oil industrial products" on "corporate taxes" is at the
level of R2≈0.153. Although this indicator is small,
it shows that there is a certain level of connection.
However, for the model to be adequate, it is
necessary to eliminate autocorrelation.
After gaining independence, Azerbaijan began
to rapidly integrate into the world market. In
accordance with the requirements of globalization,
the integration processes were accompanied by the
improvement of the business environment for the
transition from the liberalization of the internal
market to market relations. The dynamics of
indicators on the total tax rate in Azerbaijan (%) are
presented in Figure 1. Similarly, the dynamics of
corporate tax rate indicators in Azerbaijan (%) are
presented in Figure 2.
Table 1. Total tax rates 󰇛) with a) GDP
volume per capita; b) economic growth rate; Panel
analysis of the relationship between c) total capital
formation and d) volume of non-oil products
GDPPCit
GDPPCGit
GCFit
NOINDUSTit
R2
0.960551
0.017145
0.040060
0.023148
Country
number
11
11
11
15
sampling
period
(year)
15
15
15
10
Number of
observations
165
165
165
150
coefficient
5124.405
2.740372
5.13E+09
6.28E+09
Standard
error
422.3635
0.881922
1.59E+09
2.05E+09
t-statistics
12.13269
3.107272
3.225959
3.065517
P-value
0.0000
0.0022
0.0015
0.0026
coefficient
21.81968
0.026979
75286942
67381232
Standard
error
8.255854
0.016000
28866275
35980195
t-statistics
2.642935
1.686225
2.608128
1.872731
P-value
0.0092
0.0937
0.0099
0.0631
F-statistic
135.3822
2.843353
6.802332
Durbin-
Watson
coefficient
0.519747
1.387739
0.199849
0.101795
Note: calculated by the authors using the eViews
software package
Table 2. Corporate tax rates 󰇛) with a)
GDP volume per capita; b) economic growth rate;
Panel analysis of the relationship between c) total
capital formation and d) volume of non-oil products
logGDPPCit
GDPPCGit
GCFit
NOINDUSTit
R2
0.063416
0.000079
0.037427
0.152901
Country number
9
9
9
8
sampling
period
(year)
15
15
15
15
Number of
observations
135
135
135
120
coefficient
7.876420
4.328899
-
21.59846
Standard error
0.236035
1.488158
-
0.261742
t-statistics
33.36973
2.908897
-
82.51827
P-value
0.0000
0.0043
-
0.0000
coefficient
0.040603
-0.008769
6.06E+08
0.070646
Standard error
0.013530
0.085306
44990011
0.015308
t-statistics
3.000903
-0.102799
13.47094
4.615081
P-value
0.0032
0.9183
0.0000
0.0000
F-statistic
9.005416
0.010568
-
21.29897
Durbin-Watson
coefficient
0.063418
1.340679
0.25178
0.088580
Note: calculated by the authors using the eViews
software package
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2406
Volume 20, 2023
Fig. 1: Dynamics of indicators on the total tax rate
in Azerbaijan (%)
Source: [33]
One of the most important indicators of a
favorable business environment is related to the
reduction of the tax burden and the reduction of
administrative processes. As the process of
globalization covers all countries, the average
indicator of business environment favorability also
tends to decrease. The total amount of taxes
worldwide decreased by 13 percentage points in
2019 (40.38%) compared to 2005 (53.1%). In
Azerbaijan, this process had a decreasing dynamics
in the period 2005-2019, except for some years
(Figure 1).
Fig. 2: Dynamics of corporate tax rate indicators in
Azerbaijan (%)
Source: [32]
One of the important types of taxes
characterizing the favorable business environment is
corporate taxes. Such reduction of taxes can play a
stimulating role in the development of non-oil
industries. However, it cannot be denied that the
impact of corporate taxes is imperceptibly small in
cases where the effects of other factors affecting the
non-oil industrial sector are strong. In Azerbaijan,
starting in 1996, the trend of decreasing corporate
tax rates attracted attention (Figure 2). However,
after 2011, the corporate tax rate was kept at 20%. It
is not found in the economic literature to prove how
optimal such a tax rate is by scientific methods.
However, the main fact that attracts attention is that
there was no continuous increase in the volume of
non-oil industrial products during that period. Thus,
although the growth was continuous until 2015, the
sharp decrease that occurred as a result of the
devaluation of the manats (the national currency of
Azerbaijan) was observed with continuous growth
again in the following years. However, in all cases,
the reduction of corporate taxes can be considered
an important step toward improving the business
environment in the country. Determining the
optimal rate for corporate taxes is more important.
Thus, the increase in taxes, besides having a
negative effect on the business environment, can
also provide an increase in budget revenues in the
short term. But for the long term, due to the
weakening of the business environment, the activity
of taxpayers, as well as budget revenues, may
decrease faster. On the other hand, reducing
corporate taxes more than the optimal level hurts
economic activity. Therefore, to increase the impact
of corporate taxes on the economy, especially on
non-oil industries, determining its optimal rate has
important scientific and practical importance. The
dynamics of GDP per capita indicators (US dollars)
are presented in Figure 3. Similarly, the dynamics of
Economic Growth İndicators (%) are presented in
Figure 4.
Fig. 3: Dynamics of GDP per capita indicators (US
dollars)
Source: [31]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Azerbaijan The world
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Azerbaijan World
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2407
Volume 20, 2023
Fig. 4: Dynamics of Economic Growth İndicators
(%)
Source: [31]
According to the Figure 3, the volume of GDP
per person in Azerbaijan increased more than 4
times in 2021 compared to 1990 (1234.5 US dollars)
and was 5384.03 US dollars in current US dollars.
However, until the 2015 devaluation, this difference
was much larger (about 6 times). The dependence of
GDP per capita on oil revenues is due to the
important share of oil revenues in the economy of
Azerbaijan. According to the data of the World
Bank, the share of Azerbaijan's oil rent in the GDP
was close to 39.68% in 2006. Although this number
decreased significantly in the following years, the
share of oil rent is much higher. According to the
data of the World Bank for 2020, according to the
share of oil rent in GDP, Azerbaijan ranked 10th
among the countries of the world with an indicator
of 15.28%. The previous 9 places were shared by
Iraq and other oil-rich countries. Oil-rich Norway's
oil rent is only 4% of GDP. It is important to
stimulate the development of the non-oil sector in
Azerbaijan, especially the non-oil industries, based
on the experience of oil-rich developed countries.
The development of non-oil industries in the
background of the decrease in oil revenues can
create conditions for reducing the import volume of
industrial products necessary for the country's
economy and ensuring the export of some products
in the future. It is important to create more favorable
conditions for businesses working in this field to
achieve a constant increase in the volume of GDP
due to the development of non-oil industries. One
such condition is tax incentives. The dynamics of
total capital formation indicators (US dollars) are
presented in Figure 5. Similarly, the dynamics of
indicators on the volume of non-oil industrial
products (US dollars) are presented in Figure 6.
Fig. 5: Dynamics of total capital formation
indicators (US dollars)
Source: [31]
Fig. 6: Dynamics of indicators on the volume of
non-oil industrial products (US dollars)
Source: [31]
The dependence of Azerbaijan's economy on oil
revenues also manifests itself in the dynamics of the
economic growth rate. Thus, the change of oil in the
world market in any direction or the increase of oil
production does not affect the economic growth rate
in Azerbaijan. For example, in 2005, with the
opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan export pipeline,
the economic growth rate increased as a result of the
sharp increase in the export volume of Azerbaijani
oil. During the devaluation of 2015, the growth rate
decreased sharply (Figure 4). That is why the
change of taxes in any direction cannot affect the
change of the economic growth rate. However, what
we said are only assumptions and they need to be
clarified by econometric calculations.
During the last 30 years, the dynamics of total
capital formation (total domestic investment) in
Azerbaijan had an increasing tendency until the
2015 devaluation. Although this indicator decreased
sharply as a result of devaluation, it remained
somewhat stable in the following years (Figure 5).
The dependence of the total domestic investment
volume on the business environment in the country
is strong. However, since investments directed to
the oil sector have an important weight within this
indicator, its dependence on tax rates raises certain
doubts. Approximately similar dynamics are
characteristic of the volume of non-oil products
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
Azerbaijan World
-5E+09
0
5E+09
1E+10
1,5E+10
2E+10
2,5E+10
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
0
2E+09
4E+09
6E+09
8E+09
1E+10
1.990
1.993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2408
Volume 20, 2023
(Figure 6). This indicator also had an increasing
dynamic until 2015. Although there was a sharp
decrease as a result of devaluation, the increase was
observed again in the following years.
Table 3. Time series stationary of some
macroeconomic and tax rate indicators
I(0)
I(1)
There is no intercept
or trend
There is an
intersection but no
trend
There is an
intersection and a
trend
There is an
intersection but no
trend
There is an
intersection but no
trend
There is an
intersection and a
trend
GDPPCt
-
-
-
+(***)
+(**)
+(*)
GDPPCGt
+(*)
-
-
+(***)
+(***)
+(***)
NOINDUSTt
-
-
-
+(***)
+(***)
+(**)
GCFt
-
-
-
+(***)
+(**)
+(**)
Totaltaxt
-
+(***)
-
+(*)
-
+(***)
Corportaxt
-
+(*)
-
+(**)
+(**)
+(***)
Note: calculated by the authors using the eViews
software package
Based on equations (2) - (5), we need to check
the stationarity of the time series of these indicators
before looking for the regression relationship
between these indicators. Table 3 shows the results
of calculations based on the unit root test (Dickey-
Fuller test) for checking stationarity. Here, "-"
indicates no stationarity, and "+(*)", "+(**)" and
"+(***)" indicate stationarity of 10%, 5% and 1%,
indicates presence in the confidence interval,
respectively.
From the data in Table 3, it is clear that the time
series consisting of the first differences of almost all
of the indicators involved in the study is stationary
in different confidence intervals. The time series
 and are stationary at
intervals of 1% and 10%, respectively, even when
there is a cross but no trend. Thus, based on
equations (2), (3), (4), and (5), we can analyze the
regression relationship between these indicators. At
this time, we accept this as a hypothesis that
and . The result of the calculations is
given in Table 4. Note that during the calculations,
data for the period covering the years 2005-2019
were used.
The double regression analysis calculated
according to equations (6) and (7) in Table 4 proves
that there is a negative relationship between the
volume of non-oil industrial products and taxes.
However, we need to test the adequacy of this
model for two reasons. The first reason is that both
the dependent and independent variables are not
stationary from degree I(0) according to the results
given in Table 3. Therefore, the result obtained in
Table 4 can be "misleading". In this case, we must
be sure of the stationarity of the residuals. The test
of the stationarity of the residuals for both
regression analyses is given in Table 5.
Table 4. The main results of calculations are
based on equations (2)-(5).
GDPPCt
GDPPCGt
GCFt
NOINDUSTt
R2
0.543948
0.861964
0.420456
0.606769
Number of
observations
15
15
15
15
coefficient
32189.49
-128.2850
5.58E+10
2.90E+10
Standard
error
8973.032
29.63665
2.42E+10
7.93E+09
t-statistics
3.587360
-4.328594
2.307459
3.662255
p-value
0.0037
0.0010
0.0397
0.0033
coefficient
-406.0393
-0.619626
-1.67E+08
-1.62E+08
Standard
error
358.3087
1.183443
9.66E+08
3.17E+08
t-statistics
-1.133211
-0.523579
-0.173390
-0.510602
p-value
0.2793
0.6101
0.8652
0.6189
coefficient
-499.4663
7.670054
-1.80E+09
-7.78E+08
Standard
error
427.2268
1.411069
1.15E+09
3.77E+08
t-statistics
-1.169089
5.435632
-1.566232
-2.060840
p-value
0.2651
0.0002
0.1433
0.0617
The F-
statistic
7.156398
37.46707
4.352975
9.258217
Durbin-
Watson
coefficient
0.788870
1.887775
0.710699
0.827740
Note: calculated by the authors using the eViews
software package
Table 5. Checking the stationarity of variances from
degree I(0) according to equations (6) and (7).
There is
no
intercept
or trend
There is an
intersection
but no trend
There is an
intersection
and a trend
-
totaltax
+(***)
-
-
-
corportax
+(**)
-
-
Note: calculated by the authors using the eViews
software package
The obtained results prove that the residuals are
stationary in the absence of intercepts and trends.
Therefore, we can accept that the obtained result is
valid for a long period and the production volume of
non-oil industry products has a negative dependence
on taxes:
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2409
Volume 20, 2023
NOINDUSTt
=
3.44E+10 -
6.93E+08

(8)
(8.37E+09)
(2.05E+08)

  -
  
(9)
(1.58E+09)
(6.5E+7)
A second important reason for checking the
adequacy of the model obtained through regression
equations (6) and (7) is the presence of
autocorrelation in the model. So, according to the
results obtained in Table 4, the Durbin-Watson
coefficient of the double regression dependence of
the dependent variable  on the
independent variable is 0.75, and the
Durbin-Watson coefficient of the double regression
dependence on the independent variable
is 0.88. Therefore, the analysis of the
pairwise regression relationship between these
indicators after eliminating the autocorrelation for
the adequacy of the models for the short-term period
is given in Table 6.
Table 6. Regression analysis of the dependence of
the volume of non-oil industrial products
󰇛_it) on taxes for the short-term period
Corportaxt
Corportaxt - p1×
Corportax t-1 = Ctaxt
Ctaxt – p2 ×Ctaxt-1
totaltaxt
totaltaxt –p ×
totaltax t-1
R2
0.714942
0.325667
0.001132
0.467596
0.011841
Müşahidələrin
sayı
25
24
23
15
14
󰇛 󰇜
󰇛 󰇜
󰇛 󰇜
coefficient
1.64E+10
4.34E+09
3.53E+08
3.44E+10
4.03E+08
Standard error
1.58E+09
7.70E+08
1.75E+08
8.37E+09
6.74E+09
t-statistics
10.39227
5.639510
2.015398
4.112407
0.059708
p-value
0.0000
0.0000
0.0568
0.0012
0.9534
coefficient
-4.97E+08
-2.80E+08
-16199341
-6.93E+08
1.46E+08
Standard error
65468576
85800686
1.05E+08
2.05E+08
3.84E+08
t-statistics
-7.595092
-3.259575
-0.154280
-3.378989
0.379199
p-value
0.0000
0.0036
0.8789
0.0049
0.7112
The F-statistic
57.68542
10.62483
0.023802
11.41756
0.143792
Durbin-
Watson
coefficient
0.746616
0.862493
2.027082
0.879751
1.062359
Note: calculated by the authors using the eViews
software package
Based on the results obtained in Table 6, we can
claim that neither corporate taxes nor general taxes
have a significant impact on the production volume
of non-oil industrial products in Azerbaijan in the
short term. However, there is a negative relationship
in the long run. The increase in taxes has a negative
effect on the volume of production of non-oil
industrial products.
5 Discussion
A comparative analysis of the effects of taxes on the
production volume of non-oil industrial products in
the example of different countries, including
Azerbaijan, suggests that the nature of the effects of
taxes varies from country to country. Separate taxes,
as well as total taxes, are government interventions
in the economy. Such interventions reduce the
favorable business environment. Non-oil sector in
Azerbaijan is dominated by private enterprises.
However, the main part of the products produced in
such enterprises falls on the share of medium and
large enterprises. Although the number of micro and
small enterprises is large, their share in production
is small. Therefore, the increase in taxes has an
immediate negative impact on the activities of such
entrepreneurs. However, medium and large
enterprises compensate for their losses in the short
term as they put tax costs on the product cost. In the
long term, medium-sized enterprises also suffer
from a high tax burden. The results obtained on the
example of Azerbaijan are compared with the
results obtained on the example of other countries,
including on the example of Nigeria, [29], the
example of the OECD countries, [28], the example
of the 27 countries of the European Union, [26], on
the example of Jordan, [24].
6 Conclusion
Neither corporate taxes nor general taxes have a
significant impact on the production volume of non-
oil industrial products in Azerbaijan in the short
term. However, there is a negative relationship in
the long run. The increase in taxes has a negative
effect on the volume of production of non-oil
industrial products.
References:
[1] Arnold J. M, Tax policy for economic
recovery and growth, The Economic Journal
Vol. 121, No. 550, 2011, pp. F59-F80.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0297.2010.02415.x
[2] Macek R., The impact of taxation on
economic growth: case study of OECD
countries, Rev Econ Perspect. 14(4), 2014,
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2410
Volume 20, 2023
309–328. https://doi.org/10.1515/revec p-
2015-0002
[3] Stoilova D., Tax structure and economic
growth: evidence from the European Union.
Contadurнa y Administraciуn. 62, 2017,
pp.1041–1057.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cya.2017.04.006
[4] Saafi S, Mohamed MBH, Farhat A.,
Untangling the causal relationship between
tax burden distribution and economic growth
in 23 OECD countries: fresh evidence from
linear and non-linear Granger causality. Eur J
Comp Econ. 14 (2), 2017, pp.265–301
[5] Durusu-зiftзi D, Gцkmenoğlu KK, Yetkiner
H. The heterogeneous impact of taxation on
economic development: new insights from a
panel cointegration approach. Economic
systems. Elsevier BV. Volume 42, Issue
3, September 2018, pp. 503-513.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2018.01.001
[6] Judd KL, Redistributive taxation in a simple
perfect foresight model. J Public Econ 28,
1985, pp. 59-83.
[7] Chamley C. Optimal taxation of capital
income in general equilibrium with infinite
lives, Econometrica: J Econometric Soc Vol.
54, No. 3 1986, pp. 607-622.
[8] Barro R.J., Notes on growth accounting. J
Econ Growth, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1999, pp. 119-
137.
[9] King RG, Rebelo S., Public policy and
economic growth: developing neoclassical
implications. J Political Economy 98: Vol. 98,
No. 5,1990. pp.126-150.
[10] Engen, E. and Skinner, J. Taxation and
Economic Growth. National Tax Journal, Vol.
49, No. 4, 1996, pp. 617-642.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w5826
[11] Romer C.D, Romer D.H. The macroeconomic
effects of tax changes: based on a new
measure of fiscal shocks. Am Econ Rev, Vol.
100, №3 2010. pp.763-801.
[12] Myles G.D., Taxation and economic growth.
Fiscal Studies. 21(1), 2000, pp.141–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-9993(93)90021 -
7
[13] Barro R.J., Government spending in a simple
model of endogenous growth. J Politic Econ
Univ Chicago Press 98 (5), 1990, pp.103–126
[14] Jones L, Manuelli R, Rossi P., Optimal
taxation in models of endogenous growth. J
Polit Econ 101(3), 1993, pp.485–517
[15] Johansson Е., Taxation and economic
Growth, National Tax, 49 (4), 2008.
https://doi.org/10.1787/2412162054 86OECD
[16] Gulaliyev G. Mayis, Bayramov V. Shahin,
Guliyeva T. Shafa, Alikhanli J. Yegana,
Orujova S. Mehpare. Granger Causality
Analysıs of Foreı gn Trade İmpact on
Economıc Growth and Some Socioeconomic
Indicators: Case of Azerbaijan. WSEAS
Transactions on business and economics.
Volume 18, 2021, DOI:
10.37394/23207.2021.18.28
[17] Gulaliyev, M. G., Ashurbayli-Huseynova, N.
P., Gubadova, A. A., Ahmedov, B. N.,
Mammadova, G. M., & Jafarova, R. T.
Stability of the banking sector: deriving
stability indicators and stress-testing. Polish
journal of management studies, 19(2), 2019,
182-195.
[18] Gulaliyev Mayis G., Gurbanova Tunzale T.,
Mammadova Gultekin G., Tagiyeva Nigar S.,
Alikhanli Yegana S., Abdullayev Elvin S.
(2021). Comparative Analyze of the
Traditional and Islamic Banking Impacts on
Poverty. WSEAS Transactions on business
and economics. Volume 18, 2021 DOI:
10.37394/23207.2021.18.48
[19] Gulaliyev, MG, Abasova, ST, Samedova, ER,
Hamidova, LA, Valiyeva, SI & Serttash, LR .
Assessment of agricultural sustainability
(Azerbaijan case). Bulgarian Journal of
Agricultural Science, 25 (Suppl. 2), 2019.
pp.80–89
[20] Mooij, Ruud de and Michael Keen. Fiscal
Devaluation and Fiscal Consolidation: The
VAT in Troubled Times. IMF Working Paper,
12/85, 2012, pp.48
[21] Gustavo Canavire-Bacarreza, Vazquez
Martinez-, Jorge; Violeta Vulovic, Taxation
and economic growth in Latin America, IDB
Working Paper Series, No. IDBWP-431,
2013, pp 48, [Online],
https://hdl.handle.net/11319/4583 (Accessed
Date: June 1, 2023)
[22] Szarowská, I., Effects of taxation by
economic functions on economic growth in
the European Union. Proceedings of the 6th
International Scientific Conference: Finance
and the performance of Firms in Science,
Education and Practice. Zlin: Tomas Bata
University, 2013, pp. 746-758.
[23] Ogbonna G.N. and Ebimobowei A. Impact of
Tax Reforms and Economic Growth of
Nigeria: A Time Series Analysis. Current
Research Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1),
2012, pp.62-68.
[24] Alaaeddin Al-tarawneh, Mohammd
Khataybeh, Sami Alkhawaldeh, Impact of
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2411
Volume 20, 2023
Taxation on Economic Growth in an
Emerging Country. International Journal of
Business and Economics Research, 9(2),
2020, pp. 73-77
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijber.20200902.13
[25] Cornelius M. Ojong, Ogar Anthony & Oka
Felix Arikpo, The Impact of Tax Revenue on
Economic Growth: Evidence from Nigeria.
IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance,
Volume 7, Issue 1., 2016, pp. 32-38.
[26] Desislava Stoilova, Nikolay Patonov, An
empirical evidence for the impact of taxation
on economy growth in the european union.
Tourism and Management Studies
International Conference Algarve, vol.3,
2012, pp.1031-1039.
[27] Dladla, Khumbuzile and Khobai, Hlalefang,
(2018). The impact of Taxation on Economic
Growth in South Africa, Munich Personal
RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 86219,
posted 17 Apr 2018, pp. 16.
[28] Macek, Rudolf,The Impact of Taxation on
Economic Growth: Case Study of OECD
Countries, Review of Economic Perspectives,
Vol. 14, Iss. 4, 2015, pp. 309-328,
https://doi.org/10.1515/revecp-2015-0002
[29] Onakoya, Adegbemi Babatunde, Afintinni,
Oluwatobi Ibukun, Taxation and economic
growth in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Economic
Modelling, 4(4), 2016, pp. 199-210.
DOI:10.18488/journal.8/2016.4.4/8.4.199.210
[30] Santo Milasia and Robert J. Waldmann, Top
marginal taxation and economic growth,
Applied economics, 50 (19), 2017, pp. 2156-
2170 DOI:10.1080/00036846.2017.1392001
[31] Word Bank, [Online],
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.
TOTL.CD (Accessed Date: June 1, 2023)
[32] The Tax Foundation, 2022, [Online],
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/corpora
te-tax-rates-around-the-world/ (Accessed
Date: June 1, 2023)
[33] Word Bank, [Online],
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.TAX.
TOTL.CP.ZS (Accessed Date: June 1, 2023)
[34] Davidson R. and MacKinnon J.G., Estimation
and Inference in Econometrics, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 708.
[35] Hamilton J., Time Series Analysis, Princeton
University Press. 1994, p.766
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
- Gulaliyev M- Writing - review & editing &
methodology
- Aliyev S.- Data curation and resources
- Hasanova A.- Writing - original draft
- Hurshudov S.- Formal analysis and project
administration
- Salahov F.- Investigation
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
There is not any funding for this research
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.206
Shafa Aliyev, Mayis Gulaliyev,
Shahin Hurshudov, Afet Hasanova, Fariz Salahov
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
2412
Volume 20, 2023