Sectoral Patterns of Labor Productivity Growth in Turkey

This study analyzes the patterns and changes in Turkey’s labor productivity between 1991 and 2018 and evaluates its contribution to overall economic growth in Turkey. Labor productivity growth is decomposed into its ‘within-sector’ and ‘between-sectors’ (structural change) components through static and dynamic measurement tools. In this way, it becomes possible to reveal whether the changes in labor productivity result from the productivity changes within a sector or the reallocation of labor across sectors. The findings of the study indicate that labor productivity growth is the driving force of Turkey’s economic growth, even though Turkey lags behind the OECD countries in terms of labor productivity (especially in the industrial sector). One key result is that Turkey’s labor productivity growth arises mainly from the ‘within-sector’ productivity improvements rather than structural change. Some policy implications are also discussed for Turkey to raise labor productivity, enhance resource allocation, and promote economic growth.

Türkiye’de İşgücü Verimliliği Artışının Sektörel Kalıpları

Bu çalışma, 1990-2018 yılları arasında Türkiye'nin işgücü verimliliği kalıplarını ve bu kalıpların zaman içindeki değişimlerini değerlendirmekte ve işgücü verimliliği artışının Türkiye'nin ekonomik performansı üzerindeki rolü hakkında yeni bulgular sunmaktadır. Ayrıca, işgücü verimliliği değişimini statik ve dinamik ölçümler aracılığıyla sektör-içi değişim ve sektörler-arası değişim (yapısal değişim) bileşenlerine ayrıştırmakta, böylece işgücü verimliliğindeki değişimlerin bir sektörün kendi içindeki verimlilik değişikliklerinden mi yoksa farklı verimlilik düzeylerine sahip sektörler arasında emeğin yeniden tahsis edilmesinden mi kaynaklandığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmanın bulguları Türkiye’nin işgücü verimliliğinin, özellikle sanayi sektörü için, OECD ülkelerinin ortalamasının oldukça altında kaldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, işgücü verimliliğindeki artışın, istihdam oranı, işgücüne katılma oranı, çalışma yaşının toplam nüfusa oranı gibi diğer unsurlara kıyasla büyümenin itici gücü olduğunu göstermektedir. Son olarak çalışma, işgücü verimliliği artışında, sektör içi verimlilik artışının, yapısal değişimden çok daha önemli bir rolü olduğunu ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Çalışma aynı zamanda, işgücü verimliliğini artırmak, kaynakların tahsisini iyileştirmek ve ekonomik büyümeyi teşvik etmek için politikalar önermektedir.

PDF

___

Aggarwal, A., (2018). Economic Growth, Structural Change and Productive Employment Linkages in India: Did Market Transition Matter?. South Asia Economic Journal, 19(1), 64-85.

Ajakaiye, O., Jerome, A. T., Nabena, D. and Alaba, O. A., (2015). Understanding the relationship between growth and employment in Nigeria (No. 2015/124). WIDER Working Paper.

Ark, V. B., Timmer, M. G., (2003). “Asia’s Productivity Performance and Potential: The Contribution of Sectors and Structural Change. University of Groningen and the Conference Board. Retrieved from http://www.ggdc.nl/databases/10_sector/2007/papers/asia_p

Atiyas, İ., Bakis, O., (2015). Structural change and industrial policy in Turkey. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(6), 1209-1229.

Bbaale, E., (2013). ‘Is Uganda’s Growth Profile Jobless?’. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 5(11), 105-123.

Chenery, H., Robinson, S. and Syrquin, M., (1986). Industrialization and growth: a comparative study. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

Chikabwi, D., Chidoko, C. and Mudzingiri, C., (2017). Manufacturing sector productivity growth drivers: Evidence from SADC member states. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 9(2), 163-171.

De Vries, G., Timmer, M. and De Vries, K., (2015). Structural transformation in Africa: Static gains, dynamic losses. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(6), 674-688.

Ekmen-Özçelik, S., Karacaer-Ulusoy, M., (2018). Structural Change and Productivity Growth in Asian Countries. In M. C. Demir, Academic Studies in Social, Human and Administrative Sciences, (pp. 285-302). Ankara: Gece Kitaplığı.

Ekmen Özçelik, S., (2018). Key Facts and Trends in Female Labor Force Participation in Turkey. ISEFE 2018: International Symposium on Economics, Finance and Econometrics, Turkey.

Eslava, M., Haltiwanger, J., Kugler, A. and Kugler, M., (2013). Trade and market selection: Evidence from manufacturing plants in Colombia. Review of Economic Dynamics, 16(1), 135-158.

Fernandes, A. M., (2007). Trade policy, trade volumes and plant-level productivity in Colombian manufacturing industries. Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 52-71.

Foster-McGregor, N., Verspagen, B., (2016). The role of structural transformation in the potential of Asian economic growth. Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series, 479.

Gutiérrez, C., Orecchia, C., Paci, P. and Serneels, P., (2009). Does employment generation really matter for poverty reduction?. In R. Kanbur and J. Svejnar (Eds), Labor markets and economic development. New York: Routledge.

Hiyassat, M. A., Hiyari, M. A. and Sweis, G. J., (2016). Factors affecting construction labor productivity: a case study of Jordan. International Journal of Construction Management, 16(2), 138-149.

Ibrahim, H., Isa, A., and Shahbudin, A., (2016). Organizational support and creativity: The role of developmenatl experiences as a moderator. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 509- 514.

ILO (2005). World Employment Report 2004-2005: Employment, productivity and poverty reduction . Geneva: International Labour Organization.

ILO (2013). Global Employment Trends 2013. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

Karlılar, S., Kıral, G., (2019). Kadın İşgücüne Katılımı Ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Ülke Grupları İçin Panel Veri Analizi. 3. Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 54(2), 935-948.

Koçtürk, O. M., Gölalan M., (2010),"1923-1950 Türkiye Ekonomisinin Yapısal Analizi", 3. Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi,45(2), 88-65.

Korkmaz, S., Korkmaz, O., (2017). The Relationship between Labor Productivity and Economic Growth in OECD Countries. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 9(5), 71- 76.

Maia, A. G., Menezes, E., (2014). Economic growth, labor and productivity in Brazil and the United States: a comparative analysis. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 34(2), 212- 229.

Mburu, L. N., (2020). Examining how Employee Characteristics, Workplace Conditions and Management Practices all combine to Support Creativity, Efficiency and Effectiveness. International Journal of Business Management, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2(1), 52-64.

McMillan, M., Rodrik, D., (2011). Globalization, structural change and productivity growth. In M. Bacchetta, & M. Jense, Making globalization socially sustainable (pp. 49-84). Geneva: International Labour Organization and World Trade Organization.

McMillan, M., Rodrik, D. and Verduzco-Gallo, I. (2014). Globalization, Structural Change, and Productivity Growth, with an Update on Africa. World Development, 63, 11-32.

Omari, K. and Haneen, O., (2017). The influence of work environment on job performance: A case study of engineering company in Jordan. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(24), 15544-15550.

Özçelik, E. and Taymaz, E., (2008). R&D support programs in developing countries: The Turkish experience. Research Policy, 37(2), 258-275.

Pagés, C., (2010). The age of productivity. In The Age of Productivity (pp. 1-21). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Paus, E., Reinhardt, N. and Robinson, M. (2003). Trade liberalization and productivity growth in Latin American manufacturing, 1970-98. The Journal of Policy Reform, 6(1), 1-15.

Pavcnik, N., (2002). Trade liberalization, exit, and productivity improvements: Evidence from Chilean plants. The Review of Economic Studies, 69(1), 245-276.

Pieper, U., (2000). Deindustrialization and the social and economic sustainability nexus in developing countries: cross-country evidence on productivity and employment. Journal of Development Studies, 36(4), 66–99.

Pirciog, S., Lincaru, C., (2016). Job generation profile evaluation for Romania using Shapley method. Romanian Economic and Business Review, 11(2), 66.

Restuccia, D., (2013). The Latin American Development Problem: An Interpretation. Economia, 13(2), 69-100.

Roncolato, L., Kucera, D., (2014). Structural drivers of productivity and employment growth: a decomposition analysis for 81 countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(2), 399- 424.

Salvatore, N., (2008). Technology, Economic Growth, and the State: American Political Culture and Economy, 1870-2000. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 3(2), 1-17.

Samson, G., Maina, W. and Joel, K., (2015). Effect of workplace environment on the performance of commercial banks employees in Nakuru town. International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research, 3(12), 76-89.

Shorrocks, A. F., (1999). Decomposition procedures for distributional analysis: a unified framework based on the Shapley value. mimeo, University of Essex.

Shorrocks, A. F., (2013). Decomposition procedures for distributional analysis: a unified framework based on the Shapley value. Journal of Economic Inequality, 11(1), 99-126.

Su, B., Heshmati, A., ( 2013). Development and Sources of Labor Productivity in Chinese Provinces. China Economic Policy Review, 2(02), 1-30.

Taymaz, E., Kılıçaslan, Y., (2006). Sınai Yapı, Yapısal Değişim ve Verimlilik, İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 21(247), 5-23.

Yılmaz, G., (2016). Labor productivity in the middle-income trap and the graduated countries. Central Bank Review, 16(2), 73-83.

Yurtsızoğlu, Z., Kılıçaslan, Y., (2017). Türkiye Hizmet Sektöründe Yapısal Değişim ve Verimlilik. Ege Academic Review, 17(2), 215-227.

Warr, P. G., (2006). Productivity growth in Thailand and Indonesia: how agriculture contributes to economic growth. 417-2016-26412, Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University.

World Bank (2012b). Job Generation and Growth Decomposition Tool: Understanding the Sectoral Pattern of Growth and its Employment and Productivity Intensity. Reference Manual and User’s Guide, Version 1.0”, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.