EFFECTIVENESS OF FISCAL POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY IN TURKEY
Year 2018,
Issue: 57, 120 - 128, 18.08.2018
Güner Tuncer
,
Adil Akıncı
Abstract
Which policy is more effectiveness;
fiscal policy or monetary policy? This question occupies the agenda both
theoretically and empirically. Based on this, the purpose of this study is to
analyze the effectiveness of the fiscal and monetary policies in Turkey. In
terms of macroeconomics, effectiveness is basically the growth of the national
income pie. In this context, effectiveness comparison is evaluated on economic
growth in the analysis of the study. In the analysis of the study, the Bounds
Test is applied for 2006:Q1-2016:Q3 period. According to the econometric results,
it was determined that the monetary policy for Turkey is effectiveness.
References
- Khosravi, A., & Mohammad Sharif, K. (2010). To Investigation the Relationship Between Monetary, Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth in Iran: Autoregressive Distributed Lag Approach to Cointegration. American Journal of Applied Science, 7(3), 415-419.
- Kıran, B., & Güriş, B. (2011). Türkiye’de Ticari Ve Finansal Dışaaçıklığın Büyümeye Etkisi: 1992-2006 Dönemi Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 69-80.
- Nidhiprabha, B. (2010). Effectiveness of Thailand’s Macroeconomic Policy Response to The Global Financial Crisis. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 27(1), 121-135.
- Pesaran, M., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics(16), 289-326.
- Pyun, J. H., & Dong-Eun, R. (2015). Fiscal Multipliers During The Global Financial Crisis: Fiscal and Monetary Interaction Matters. Contemporary Economic Policy, 33(1), 207-220.
- Saibu, M., & Apanisile, O. (2013). A Bound Test Analysis of The Effects of Global Economic Shocks on Nigerian Economy: The Role of Fiscal and Monetary Policies. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 2(12), 58-68.
- Sancar, C. (2015). Para ve Maliye Politikalarının Nispi Etkinliği: Türkiye İçin Bir Uygulama. Journal of International Social Research, 8(39), 933-943.
- Senbet, D. (2011). The Relative Impact of Fiscal Versus Monetary Actions On Output: A Vector Autoregressive (VAR) Approach. Business and Economics Journal(2011-BEJ-25), 1-11.
- Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. (1992). Further Evidence On The Great Crash, The Oil-Price Shock, And The Unit-Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistic(10), 251-270.
- Alavi, S. E., Moshiri, S., & Sattarifar, M. (2016). An Analysis of the efficiency of the monetary and fiscal policies in Iran economy using IS–MP–AS model. Procedia Economics and Finance(36), 522-531.
- Bağdadioğlu, N. (2012). Maliye ve Para Politikalarının Nispi Etkinliği. B. Ataç içinde, Maliye Politikası I (s. 56-79). Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No: 2560.
- Bayoumi, T. (1999). The Morning After: Explaining the Slowdown in Japanese Growth in the 1990s. IMF Working Papers 99/13.
- Düzgün, R. (2010). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Para ve Maliye Politikalarının Etkinliği. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(11), 230-237.
- Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. (1987). Co-integration And Error Correction: Representation, Estimation And Testing. Econometrica(55), 251–276.
- Hussain, M. N. (2014). Empirical Econometric Analysis of Relationship Between Fiscal-Monetary Policies and Output on SAARC Countries. The Journal of Developing Areas, 48(4), 209-224.
- Jawadi, F., Mallick, S. K., & Sousa, R. M. (2016). Fiscal and monetary policies in the BRICS: A panel VAR approach. Economic Modelling (58), 535-542.
- Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical Analysis of Cointegrating Vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control(12), 231-254.
- Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration with Applications to the Demand for Money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics(52), 169-210.
TÜRKİYE’DE MALİYE POLİTİKASI İLE PARA POLİTİKASININ ETKİLİLİĞİ
Year 2018,
Issue: 57, 120 - 128, 18.08.2018
Güner Tuncer
,
Adil Akıncı
Abstract
Hangi politika daha etkilidir
maliye politikası mı para politikası mı? Bu soru gerek teorik gerek ampirik
çalışmalarda gündemi oldukça meşgul etmektedir. Bu önemden hareketle bu
çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de maliye ve para politikalarının etkililiğini analiz
etmektir. Makro iktisadi anlamda etkililik temel olarak milli gelir pastasının
büyümesidir. Bu kapsamda çalışmanın analizinde etkililik kıyaslaması ekonomik
büyüme üzerinde değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışmanın analizinde 2006:Q1-2016:Q3
dönemi için Sınır (Bounds) Testi uygulanmıştır. Ekonometrik sonuçlara göre
Türkiye için para politikasının etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir.
References
- Khosravi, A., & Mohammad Sharif, K. (2010). To Investigation the Relationship Between Monetary, Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth in Iran: Autoregressive Distributed Lag Approach to Cointegration. American Journal of Applied Science, 7(3), 415-419.
- Kıran, B., & Güriş, B. (2011). Türkiye’de Ticari Ve Finansal Dışaaçıklığın Büyümeye Etkisi: 1992-2006 Dönemi Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 69-80.
- Nidhiprabha, B. (2010). Effectiveness of Thailand’s Macroeconomic Policy Response to The Global Financial Crisis. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 27(1), 121-135.
- Pesaran, M., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics(16), 289-326.
- Pyun, J. H., & Dong-Eun, R. (2015). Fiscal Multipliers During The Global Financial Crisis: Fiscal and Monetary Interaction Matters. Contemporary Economic Policy, 33(1), 207-220.
- Saibu, M., & Apanisile, O. (2013). A Bound Test Analysis of The Effects of Global Economic Shocks on Nigerian Economy: The Role of Fiscal and Monetary Policies. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 2(12), 58-68.
- Sancar, C. (2015). Para ve Maliye Politikalarının Nispi Etkinliği: Türkiye İçin Bir Uygulama. Journal of International Social Research, 8(39), 933-943.
- Senbet, D. (2011). The Relative Impact of Fiscal Versus Monetary Actions On Output: A Vector Autoregressive (VAR) Approach. Business and Economics Journal(2011-BEJ-25), 1-11.
- Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. (1992). Further Evidence On The Great Crash, The Oil-Price Shock, And The Unit-Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistic(10), 251-270.
- Alavi, S. E., Moshiri, S., & Sattarifar, M. (2016). An Analysis of the efficiency of the monetary and fiscal policies in Iran economy using IS–MP–AS model. Procedia Economics and Finance(36), 522-531.
- Bağdadioğlu, N. (2012). Maliye ve Para Politikalarının Nispi Etkinliği. B. Ataç içinde, Maliye Politikası I (s. 56-79). Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No: 2560.
- Bayoumi, T. (1999). The Morning After: Explaining the Slowdown in Japanese Growth in the 1990s. IMF Working Papers 99/13.
- Düzgün, R. (2010). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Para ve Maliye Politikalarının Etkinliği. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(11), 230-237.
- Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. (1987). Co-integration And Error Correction: Representation, Estimation And Testing. Econometrica(55), 251–276.
- Hussain, M. N. (2014). Empirical Econometric Analysis of Relationship Between Fiscal-Monetary Policies and Output on SAARC Countries. The Journal of Developing Areas, 48(4), 209-224.
- Jawadi, F., Mallick, S. K., & Sousa, R. M. (2016). Fiscal and monetary policies in the BRICS: A panel VAR approach. Economic Modelling (58), 535-542.
- Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical Analysis of Cointegrating Vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control(12), 231-254.
- Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration with Applications to the Demand for Money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics(52), 169-210.