PARA TALEBİ TAHMİNİ VE PARA İKAMESİ: TÜRKİYE İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI TESTLERLE AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ

Year 2021, Volume: 17 Issue: 1, 91 - 110, 28.05.2021

Emin Ertürk , Bahar Baysal Kar

Abstract

Bu çalışma Türkiye için para talebini ampirik olarak tahmin etmektedir. Para talebi, reel gelirin, nominal faiz oranının, enflasyon oranının ve nominal efektif döviz kurunun fonksiyonu olduğu varsayılmıştır. Para talebi fonksiyonuna döviz kurunun dahil edilmesi para ikamesi hipotezinin test edilmesine olanak sağlamaktadır. Ampirik analizde 2005-2019 dönemine ait aylık verilerden faydalanılmıştır. Geleneksel ekonometrik yaklaşımlarda ortaya çıkabilecek olası yanlılığı ortadan kaldırmak için yapısal kırılmalı testlere başvurulmuştur. Tahmin sonuçlarına göre para talebi reel gelirin pozitif ve nominal faiz, enflasyon ve nominal döviz kurunun negatif fonksiyonudur. Ayrıca istikrar testlerine göre yapısal değişmenin yaşandığı dönem sonrasında para talebinin istikrarlı olmadığı tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

para talebi, para ikamesi, Türkiye, yapısal kırılma

References

• Akçay, O. C., Alper, C.E., & Karasulu, M. (1997). Currency substitution and exchange rate instability: The Turkish case. European Economic Review, 41, 827-835.
• Akkaya, Y. & Gürkaynak R.S. (2012). Cari açık, bütçe dengesi, finansal istikrar ve para politikası: heyecanlı bir dönemin izi. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 27(315), 93-119.
• Alp, B. ve Yalçın, C. (2015). Türkiye’de şirketlerin borç dolarizasyonu ve büyüme performansı (liability dollarization and growth performance of non-financial firms in turkey). Central Bank Working Papers,15/01, 1-44.
• Apergis, N. (2015). Long-run estimates of money demand: New evidence from east asian countries and the presence of structural break. Applied Economics, 47(31), 3276-3291.
• Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Karacal, M. (2006). The demand for money in turkey and currency substitution. Applied Economics Letters, 13, 635-642.
• Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Halicioglu, F. & Bahmani, S. (2017). Do exchange rate changes have symmetric or asymmetric effects on the demand for money in turkey?. Applied Economics, 49(42), 4261-4270.
• Ball, L. (2001). Another look at long-run money demand. Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, 47(1), 31-44.
• Benati, L., Lucas, R. E., Nicolini, J. P. & Weber, W. (2017). International evidence on long-run money demand. Minneapolis FED Research Working Paper, No. 738, Retrieved July 3, 2019, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp737.pdf.
• Bergevin, P. & Laidler, D. E. W. (2010). Putting money back into monetary policy: A monetary anchor for price and financial stability. C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, No. 312, October 2010. Retrieved June 15, 2019, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1713948.
• Bordo, M. D. & Choudhri, E. U. (1982). Currency substitution and the demand for money: some evidence for Canada. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 14(1), 48-57.
• Calvo, G. & Vegh, C. (1992). Currency substitution in developing countries: An introduction.” MPRA Paper No. 20338, 1-31. Retrieved September 3, 2019, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20338/
• Civcir, İ. (2003). Money demand, financial liberalization and currency substitution in Turkey. Journal of Economic Studies, 30(5), 514-534.
• Cuddington, J. T. (1983). Currency substitution, capital mobility and money demand. Journal of International Money and Finance, 2(2), 111-133.
• Ertürk, E. (1991). Türkiye iktisadında yeni bir boyut para ikamesi: Kavram, teori, oluşum süreci ve sonuçları. Uludağ Yayınları, Bursa.
• Friedman, M. (1956). The quantity theory of money: A restatement. Collected Works of Milton Friedman Project Records. Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford, CA. http://miltonfriedman.hoover.org.
• Giovannini, A. & Turtelboom, B. (1992). Currency substitution. NBER Working Papers, No. 4232, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
• Glynn, J., Perera, N. & Verma, R. (2007). Unit root tests and structural breaks: A survey with applications. Revista De Me ́Todos Cuantitativos Para La Econom ́Ia Y La Empresa (3), P ́aginas, 63–79.
• Gregory, A. W. & Hansen, B. E. (1996a). Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. Journal of Econometrics, 70 (1), 99-126.
• Gregory, A. W. ve Hansen, B. E. (1996b). Practitioners corner: Tests for cointegration in models with regime and trend shifts. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58 (3), 555-560.
• Gürkaynak, R. S., Kantur, Z., Taş, M. A. & Yıldırım, S. (2015). Monetary policy in turkey after central bank independence. CFS Working Paper No. 520. Retrieved July 10, 2019, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2676570.
• Kumar, S. & Webber, D. J. (2013). Australasian money demand stability: Application of structural break tests. Applied Economics, 45(8), 1011-1025.
• Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
• Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2004). Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Manuscript, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, 1-16.
• Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2013). Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Economics Bulletin, 33(4), 2483-2492.
• McKinnon, R. I. (1982). Currency substitution and instability in the world dollar standard. American Economic Review, American Economic Association, 72(3), 320-333.
• Metin-Özcan, K. & Us, V. (2007). Dedollarization in Turkey after decades of dollarization: A myth or reality?. Physica, 385, 292-306.
• Mutluer, D. & Barlas, Y. (2012). Modeling the Turkish broad money demand. Central Bank Review, 2(2), 55-75.
• Ortiz, G. (1983). Dollarization in Mexico: Causes and consequences. Financial policies and the world capital market: The problem of Latin American countries. University of Chicago Press, 71-106.
• Özatay, F. (2011). Parasal iktisat: Kuram ve politika, 1. Basım, Efil Yayınevi, Ankara.
• Özatay, F. (2012). Para politikasında yeni arayışlar. İktisat ve Toplum, 15, 20-30.
• Özatay, F. (2015). 2000’li yıllarda Türkiye ekonomisi. İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, 30 (350), 9-24.
• Özatay, F. (2017). 2017 Değerlendirmesi (2). Dünya, 27 Aralık.
• Özatay, F. (2018). Çözüm Var ve Zor Değil. Dünya, 23 Mayıs. Özatay, F. (2019). Ezberleri Bozun Lütfen. Dünya, 12 Aralık.
• Park, J. Y. (1992). Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 119-143.
• Phillips, P. C. B. & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99–125.
• Prock, J., Soydemir, G. A. & Abugri, B. A. (2003). Currency substitution: Evidence from Latin America. Journal of Policy Modeling, 25(4), 415-430.
• Ramirez-Rojas, C. (1985). Currency substitution in Argentina, Mexico, and Uruguay. Staff Papers (International Monetary Fund), 32(4), 629-667.
• Scacciavillani, F. (1995). Exchange Rate Movements, Inflation Expectations, and Currency Substitution in Turkey. IMF Working Papers 95/111, International Monetary Fund.
• Selçuk, F. (1994). Currency Substitution in Turkey. Applied Economics, 26(5), 509-518.
• Taşseven, Ö., Fitzsimmons, A.P. & Elifoğlu, I. H. (2015). Currency substitution in Turkey: Macroeconomic determinants. Journal of Emerging Markets, 20(1-2), 52-69.
• Thomas, L. R. (1985). Portfolio theory and currency substitution. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 17(3), 347-357.
• Yeyati, E. L. (2003). Financial dedollarization: A carrot and stick approach. Universidad Torcuato di Tella, Centro de Investigación en Finanzas.
• Yazgan, M.E. & Zer-Toker, İ. (2010). Currency substitution, policy rule and pass-through: Evidence from Turkey. Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, 42(18), 2365-2378.
• Zivot, E. & Andrews, D. W.K. (1992). Further evidence on the Great Crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251–270.