Harrod-Nötr Teknolojik Gelişme Varsayımı Altında Türkiye’de Büyümenin Kaynakları
Teknolojik gelişmenin türü Harrod-nötr teknolojik gelişme olarak kabul edildiğinde, yapılan analiz durağan durum koşulları ile uyumlu olmaktadır. Bu nedenle, uzun dönemli ilişkileri gerektiren ekonometrik yöntemler kullanılarak yapılan çalışmalarda teknolojik gelişmenin türünün Harrod-nötr varsayılması daha uygundur. Bu çalışmada Türkiye ekonomisi için büyümenin kaynakları 1970-2011 dönemi için Harrod-nötr teknolojik gelişme varsayımı altında incelenmiştir. Söz konusu inceleme Pesaran, Shin ve Smith (2001) makalesine dayanan sınır sınaması ve Pesaran ve Shin (1999) çalışmasına dayanan otoregresif dağıtılmış gecikme modeli ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Tahmin sonuçlarının sağlamlığı ise Phillips ve Hansen (1990) makalesi ile tanımlanmış değiştirilmiş en küçük kareler yaklaşımı ile araştırılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, Türkiye’de toplam faktör verimliliği büyümesinin, emek başına hasıla büyüme oranının dalgalanmasını belirlemesi mümkün ise de büyümenin esas kaynağı olmadığını ima etmektedir. Ayrıca, çalışmanın bulguları, verimlilik büyümesinin fiziki ve beşeri sermaye birikimi ve emek arzı artışı ile belirlenen ekonomiye içsel bir unsur olduğunu da ima etmektedir
Sources of Growth in Turkey Under Harrod-Neutral Technological Progress Identification
If it is assumed that the nature of technological progress as Harrod-neutral, the analysis is compatible with steady state conditions. It is for this reason that the nature of technological progress is assumed to be Harrod-neutral for the econometric studies which analyze long-run relationships. This study investigates sources of growth for the Turkish economy for the period 1970-2011 based on Harrod-neutral technological progress identification. The analysis is made using the bounds testing procedure of Pesaran, Shin and Smith (2001) and the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach of Pesaran and Shin (1999). The robustness of the test results and parameter estimates are also justified by the fully modified ordinary least squares approach of Phillips and Hansen (1990). The results imply that although productivity growth may determine rise and fall of per labor output growth, it is not the main source. Further, the results also imply that productivity growth is an endogenous variable which is determined by physical and human capital accumulation, and labor growth
___
- Abu-Qarn Aamer S. ve Abu–Bader Suleiman (2007)
“Sources of growth revisited: Evidence from selected
MENA countries” World Development, 35: 752–771.
- Acikgoz, S. ve Mert, M. (2014) “Sources of Growth
Revisited: The Importance of the Nature of Technological
Progress” Journal of Applied Economics, 7(1): 31-62.
- Acikgoz, S. ve Mert, M. (2015) “A Short Note on the
Fallacy of Identification of Technological Progress in Models
of Economic Growth” Sage Open, baskıda.
- Açikgöz, Ş. ve Karpat Çatalbaş, G. (2010) “Türkiye
Ekonomisinde Büyümenin Kaynakları: Parametrik Olmayan
Bir Yaklaşım” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi,
25(2): 1-22.
- Akerlof, G. ve Nordhaus, W. D. (1967) “Balanced
Growth-A Razor’s Edge?” International Economic Review,
8(3): 343-348.
- Altug, S., Filiztekin, A. ve Pamuk, Ş. (2006) “Sources
of Long-Term Economic Growth for Turkey, 1880-2005”
European Review of Economic History, 12,: 393–430.
- Aschauer, D. A. (1989) “Is Public Expenditure Productive”
Journal of Monetary Economics, 23: 177-200.
- Barro, R.J. ve Lee J. (2013) “A new data set of educational
attainment in the world,1950--‐2010”Journal of
Development Economics, 104: 184-198.
- Bosworth, B., Collins S. M. ve Virmani, A. (2007)
“Sources of Growth in the Indian Economy” NBER Working
Paper Series, No. 12901.
- Caporale, G. Maria ve Pittis, N. (2004) “Estimator
choice and Fisher’s Paradox: A Monte Carlo study” Econometric
Review, 23: 25-52.
- Dickey, D. ve Fuller, W.A. (1979) “Distribution of the
estimates for autoregressive time series with unit root” Journal
of the American Statistical Association, June, 74(366):
427-431.
- Engle, R. F. ve Granger, C. W. J. (1987) “Cointegration
and error correction representation: estimation and
testing” Econometrica, 55(2): 251-276.
- Elliot, G., Rothenberg, T. J. ve Stock, J. H. (1996)
“Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root” Econometrica,
64(4): 813-836.
- Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar R. ve Timmer, M. P. (2013)
“The Next Generation of the Penn World Table” available
for download at www.ggdc.net/pwt
- Hansen, B. E. (1992) “Tests for parameter instability
in regressions with I(1) processes” Journal of Business and
Economic Statistics, 10: 321-335.
- Harrod, R. F. (1948) Towards a dynamic economics,
London, Macmillan and Co.
- Hicks, J. R. (1963) The theory of wages, 2nd edition,
London, Macmillan and Co.
- Inada, K. (1964) “Economic Growth under Neutral
Technical Progress” Econometrica, 32 (1/2): 101-121.
- İsmihan, M. ve Metin-Özcan, K. (2006) “Türkiye
Ekonomisinde Büyümenin Kaynakları: 1960-2004” İktisat,
İşletme ve Finans, 21(Nisan): 74-86.
- Johansen, S. (1988) “Statistical analysis of cointegrating
vectors” Journal of Economic Dynamicand Control,
12(2-3): 231-254.
- Johansen, S. ve Juselius, K. (1990) “Maximum likelihood
estimation and inference on cointegration with
application to the demand for Money” Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics, 52(2): 169-209.
- Klenow, P. J. ve Rodríguez-Clare, A. (1997) The neoclassical
revival in growth economics: Has it gone too far?
NBER Macroeconomics Annual 12: 73-102.
- Lee, J. ve M. C. Strazicich (2003) “Minimum LM
unit root test with two structural breaks” The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 63: 1082-1089.
- Mankiw, G., Romer, D. ve Weil, D. N. (1992) “A
contribution to the empirics of economic growth” Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 107: 407–437.
- Mirrlees, J. A. (1967) “Optimum Growth when
Technology is Changing” The Review of Economic Studies,
34(1): 95-124.
- Nehru, V. ve Dhareshwar, A. (1993) “A New Database
on Physical Capital Stock: Sources, Methodology and
Results”, Revista Analisis de Economico, 8(1): 37-59.
- Panopoulou, E. ve Pittis, N. (2004) “A comparison
of autoregressive distributed lag and dynamic OLS cointegration
estimators in the case of a serially correlated
cointegration error” Econometric Journal, 7: 585-617.
- Pesaran, M. H. ve Shin, Y. (1999) “An Autoregressive
Distributed Lag Modeling Approach to Cointgeration
Analysis”, in S. Strom (Ed.), Econometrics and Economic
Theory in the 20th Century: The Ragnar Frisch Centennial
Symposium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pesaran, M. H. (1997) “The role of economic theory
in modelling the long run” Economic Journal, 107:
178–191.
- Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001) “Bounds
testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships”
Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16: 289–326.
- Phillips, P. C. B. ve Hansen, B. E. (1990) “Statistical
inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1)
processes” Review of Economic Studies, 57: 99–125.
- Psacharopoulos, G. (1994) “Returns to investment in
education: A global update” World Development, 22 (9):
1325–1343
.
Solow, R. M. (1957) “Technical change and the aggregate
production function” Review of Economics and Statistics,
39: 312-320.
- Uzawa, H. (1961) “Neutral inventions and the stability
of growth equilibrium” Review of Economic Studies,
28: 117–124.