Mehmet Akif KARA

7323

KENTSEL ALTYAPI YATIRIM HARCAMALARININ MEKÂNSAL YAYILMA ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Rekabet gücünün önemli bir belirleyicisi olan altyapı yatırım türleri, bölgesel ve kentsel ekonomiler üzerinde pek çok olumlu etkiye sahiptir. Ayrıca altyapı yatırımlarının gerçekleştirildiği kent veya bölgeye komşu kent ve bölgeler üzerinde de yayılma etkisi yoluyla olumlu ya da olumsuz etkileri gündeme gelebilmektedir. Bu çalışmada da literatürdeki ayrımdan da yararlanılarak altyapı yatırımları ekonomik ve sosyal altyapı yatırımları olarak ikiye ayrılmış ve bu altyapı yatırım türlerinin Türkiye’de kentsel düzeyde yayılma etkisi incelenmiştir. 2004-2016 ortalama yıllık verileri ve mekânsal gecikme modeli yöntemiyle Türkiye’de 81 il için altyapı yatırım türlerinin yayılma etkisinin incelendiği bu çalışma sonuçlarına göre, ekonomik ve sosyal altyapı harcama türlerinin çıktı düzeyinde pozitif yayılma etkisinin varlığı belirlenmiştir. Diğer yandan eğitim ve sağlık harcamalarından oluşan sosyal altyapı harcama türlerinin, ulaştırma-haberleşme ve enerji harcamalarından oluşan ekonomik altyapı harcamalarına göre çıktıya olan pozitif etkisinin katsayı anlamında daha yüksek olduğuna dair bulgulara rastlanmıştır.  
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Bölgesel İktisat, Altyapı Yatırımı, Mekansal Ekonometri, Yayılma Etkisi

SPATIAL SPILLOVER EFFECTS OF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS: THE CASE OF TURKEY

Infrastructure investment types, which are an important determinant of competition power, have many positive effects on the regional and urban economies. In addition, through the spread effect, their positive or negative effects on the cities and regions neighboring the city or region where the infrastructure investments are made can come to the agenda. Also, in this study, infrastructure investments are divided into economic and social infrastructure investments by making use of the distinction in the literature and spillover effects of these types of infrastructure investment on the urban level in Turkey have been examined.According to the results of this study, which has examined the spillover effects of infrastructure investment types for 81 provinces in Turkey by using 2004-2016 annual average data and spatial lag model, the existence of a positive spillover effect of economic and social infrastructure expenditure types on the output level has been determined. On the other hand, it has been concluded that the types of social infrastructure expenditure consisting of education and health expenditures have higher positive output effect than the economic infrastructure expenditures consisting of transportation-communication and energy expenditures.   
Keywords:

Regional Economics, Infrastructure Investment, Spatial Econometrics, Spillover Effects,

PDF

___

  • Alvarez, A., Arias, C., & Orea, L. (2006). Econometric testing of spatial productivity spillovers from public capital. Hacienda Pública Española/Revista de Economía Pública, 178(3): 9-21.
  • Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Norwell, MA.
  • Anselin, L. (2001). A companion to theoretical econometrics. (Ed.) Badi H. Baltagi. Spatial Econometrics (ss.310-330). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Anselin, L. (2003). Spatial externalities, spatial multipliers, and spatial econometrics. International Regional Science Review, 26(2): 153-166.
  • Anselin, L. (2010). Thirty years of spatial econometrics. Papers in Regional Science, 89(1): 3-25.
  • Aral, N., & Aytaç, M. (2018). Türkiye’de işsizliğin mekânsal analizi. Marmara Üniversitesi Öneri Dergisi, 13(49): 1-20.
  • Aschauer, D. A. (1989). Is public expenditure productive?. Journal of Monetary Economics, 23(2): 177-200.
  • Audretsch, D. B. (2004). Sustaining innovation and growth: Public policy support for entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 11(3): 167-191.
  • Aydıner, M. (2016). Export spillover effect: a spatial analysis for nuts2 regions in Turkey. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Eurasian Business & Economics Journal, 5, 64-73.
  • Bröcker, J., & Rietveld, P. (2009). Infrastructure and regional development. (Ed.) Roberta Capello and Peter Nijkamp. Handbook of Regional Growth and Development Theories (ss. 461-478)., Massachusetts: Edvard Elgar Publishing.
  • Bronzini, R., & Piselli, P. (2009). Determinants of long-run regional productivity with geographical spillovers: the role of R&D, human capital and public infrastructure. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(2): 187-199.
  • Button, K. (1998). Infrastructure investment, endogenous growth and economic convergence. The Annals of Regional science, 32(1): 145-162.
  • Cantos, P., Gumbau‐Albert, M., & Maudos, J. (2005). Transport infrastructures, spillover effects and regional growth: evidence of the Spanish case. Transport Reviews, 25(1): 25-50.
  • Deliktaş, E., Önder, A. Ö., & Karadağ, M. (2009). The spillover effects of public capital on the Turkish private manufacturing industries in the geographical regions. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(2): 365-378.
  • Franczyk, J., & Chang, H. (2009). Spatial analysis of water use in Oregon, USA, 1985–2005. Water Resources Management, 23(4): 755-774.
  • Gökdoğan Gül, T. (2014), Türkiye için istihdamın belirleyicileri: ibbs-2 bölge düzeyi, mekânsal analiz uygulaması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1): 105-135.
  • Grieve, J. (2011), The use of spatial autocorrelation statistics for the analysis of regional linguisticvariation.https://edoc.huberlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/2023/grieve.pdf?sequence=1, (Erişim tarihi, 02 Şubat 2019).
  • Gülel, F. E. (2015), Mekânsal panel veri modelleri. (Ed.) S. GÜRİŞ, Stata ile Panel Veri Modelleri (ss. 147-162). İstanbul: Der Yayınları.
  • Holtz-Eakin, D., & Schwartz, A. E. (1995). Spatial productivity spillovers from public infrastructure: evidence from state highways. International Tax and Public Finance, 2(3): 459-468.
  • John, A. E., Binu, V. S., & Unnikrishnan, B. (2019). Determinants of antenatal care utilization in India: a spatial evaluation of evidence for public health reforms. Public Health, 166, 57-64.
  • Kara, M. A., Taş, S., & Ada, S. (2016). The impact of infrastructure expenditure types on regional income in Turkey. Regional Studies, 50(9): 1509-1519.
  • Kara, M. A. (2018), Transportation and urban development: urban growth and spillover effect of transportation infrastructure investment. (Ed.) Joshua Mugmbwa and Mesharch W. Katusiimeh, Handbook of Research on Urban Governance and Management in the Developing World (ss. 283-305). United States of America: IGI Global.
  • Lall, S. V. (2007). Infrastructure and regional growth, growth dynamics and policy relevance for India. The Annals of Regional Science, 41(3): 581-599.
  • Leitner, M., & Brecht, H. (2007). Software review: crime analysis and mapping with GeoDa 0.9. 5-i. Social Science Computer Review, 25(2): 265-271.
  • LeSage, J. P. (1999). The theory and practice of spatial econometrics. University of Toledo. Toledo, Ohio, 28(11).
  • Ma, G., & Hofmann, E. T. (2019). Immigration and environment in the US: A spatial study of air quality. The Social Science Journal, 56(1): 94-106.
  • Mas, M., Maudos, J., Pérez, F., & Uriel, E. (1996). Infrastructures and productivity in the Spanish regions. Regional Studies, 30(7): 641-649.
  • Moody, C. E. (1974). The measurement of capital services by electrical energy. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 36(1): 45-52.
  • Moreno, R., & López-Bazo, E. (2007). Returns to local and transport infrastructure under regional spillovers. International Regional Science Review, 30(1): 47-71.
  • Munnell, A. H., & Cook, L. M. (1990). How does public infrastructure affect regional economic performance?. New England Economic Review, (Sep), 11-33.
  • Özbay, K., Özmen-Ertekin, D., & Berechman, J. (2007). Contribution of transportation investments to county output. Transport Policy, 14(4): 317-329.
  • Özcan, B., & Zeren, F. (2013). Sosyal güven ve ekonomik kalkınma: Avrupa ülkeleri üzerine mekansal ekonometri analizi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1): 7-36.
  • Percoco, M. (2004). Infrastructure and economic efficiency in Italian regions. Networks and Spatial Economics, 4(4): 361-378.
  • Pereira, A. M., & Andraz, J. M. (2006). Public investment in transportation infrastructures and regional asymmetries in Portugal. The Annals of Regional Science, 40(4): 803-817.
  • Pereira, A. M., & Roca-Sagalés, O. (2003). Spillover effects of public capital formation: evidence from the Spanish regions. Journal of Urban Economics, 53(2): 238-256.
  • Pirili, M., & Lenger, A. (2011, March). The role of public capital in regional economy. In International Workshop on Regional Competitiveness and International Factor Movements, Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans-Network for Economic Research INFER, France.
  • Romp, W., & De Haan, J. (2007). Public capital and economic growth: A critical survey. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 8(Supplement), 6-52.
  • Rosik, P. (2006). Public capital and regional economic growth. The Poznań University of Economics Review, 1, 69-93.
  • Schnorbus, R. H., & Israilevich, P. R. (1987). The Midwest manufacturing index: the Chicago Fed's new regional economic indicator. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Economic Perspectives, 11, 3-7.
  • Seitz, H., & Licht, G. (1995). The impact of public infrastructure capital on regional manufacturing production cost. Regional Studies, 29(3): 231-240.
  • Sloboda, B. W., & Yao, V. W. (2008). Interstate spillovers of private capital and public spending. The Annals of Regional Science, 42(3): 505-518.
  • Voss, P. R., Long, D. D., Hammer, R. B., & Friedman, S. (2006). County child poverty rates in the US: a spatial regression approach. Population Research and Policy Review, 25(4): 369-391.
  • Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3): 335-350.
  • Yılmaz, A., & Durman, M. (2015). Türkiye'de doğalgaz kullanımı ve kalkınmanın mekânsal analizi”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (43), 233-252.
  • Zeren, F. (2010). Mekânsal etkileşim analizi. Ekonometri ve İstatistik e-Dergisi, (12), 18-39.
  • Zeren, F., & Savrul, B. K. (2012). Türkiye’de şehirleşmeyi etkileyen faktörler: Mekânsal ekonometri analizi. Journal of Yasar University, 28(7): 4749-4765.
International Review of Economics and Management-Cover
  • ISSN: 2148-3493
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yıllık
  • Başlangıç: 2013
  • Yayıncı: Gökhan ÖZER
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

KENTSEL ALTYAPI YATIRIM HARCAMALARININ MEKÂNSAL YAYILMA ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Mehmet Akif KARA

THE ROLE OF EU INSTITUTIONS IN COMMON TRADE POLICY: AN ASSESSMENT ON EU-CANADA COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC AND TRADE AGREEMENT

Esra UYAR OKCU, Fabio FRANCHİNO, İbrahim Alper ARISOY

İŞ GÜVENCESİZLİĞİNİN ÖRGÜTSEL ALGILAR, AYRILAMA NİYETİ VE PERFORMANSA ETKİLERİ ÜZERİNE BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELEMESİ

Mustafa GÜNALAN

AÇIK VE UZAKTAN EĞİTİMİN KADIN GÜÇLENDİRMESİNDE ÖNEMİ: ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ ÖRNEĞİ

Güler GÜNSOY, Bulent GÜNSOY, Betül KAN KILINÇ, Berna YAZICI

İŞTE VAR OLAMAMA, İŞ TATMİNSİZLİĞİ VE İŞ YÜKÜNÜN İŞTEN AYRILMA NİYETİNE ETKİSİ: ISPARTA İLİ ÇAĞRI MERKEZİ ÇALIŞANLARI ÖRNEĞİ

Gaye ATİLLA, Gizem YILDIRIM, Havvanur BAYSAL