Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 37, 11 - 26, 01.01.2024

Tunahan Hacıimamoğlu , Oğuzhan Sungur

https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.1369367

Abstract

Economic development is an important indicator demonstrating the increases in societies’ socioeconomic welfare levels. Countries need to advance in economic, social, cultural, and political domains in order to achieve economic development. From this aspect, Türkiye is far from having a developed country profile at this moment. Accordingly, the present study aims to assess Türkiye’s development issues. For this purpose, the effects of human capital, physical capital, and economic complexity index on economic growth in Türkiye are analyzed for the period 1970-2017 using the bootstrap Fourier Granger causality in quantiles (BFGC-Q) approach recently recommended by Cheng et al. (2021). The results of the analysis indicate that human capital, physical capital, and economic complexity index have a positive causal effect on economic growth. For sustainable development, Türkiye needs foreign capital investments in a stable economic model. Furthermore, it is recommended that Türkiye should pay importance to education, science, and technology at both theoretical and practical levels, and increase the value-added and technology level in exports by diversifying its high-tech product range.

Keywords

Human Capital Physical Capital Economic Complexity Economic Development Causality

References

  • Alpay, Y., and Alkin, E. (2017). Olaylarla Türkiye ekonomisi: Yirminci yüzyıl Türkiye ekonomi tarihi. Hümanist Kitabevi.
  • Barro, R. J. (1989). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. NBER Working paper series, No: 3120.
  • Bayar, I. (2022). Ekonomik karmaşıklık indeksi ve ekonomik büyüme: CIVETS ülkelerinden ampirik kanıtlar. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 36, 237-251. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1052678
  • Benhabib, J., and Spiegel, M. M. (1994). The role of human capital in economic development: Evidence from aggregate cross-country data. Journal of Monetary Economics, 34, 143-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(94)90047-7
  • Boratav, K. (2018). Türkiye iktisat tarihi 1908-2015. İmge Kitabevi.
  • Bostancı, F. C., and Koç, S. (2022). Balkan ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisi mi doğal işsizlik oranı mı geçerli?: Fourier birim kök testleri uygulaması. Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri, 2022(2), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.56337/sbm.1167668
  • Brempong, K. G., and Wilson, M. (2004). Health human capital and economic growth in Sub-Saharan African and OECD countries. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 44(2), 296-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2003.07.002
  • Britto, G., Romero, J., Freitas, E., and Coelho, C. (2016). The great divide: Economic complexity and development paths in Brazil and South Korea. Blucher Engineering Proceedings, 3(4), 1404-1425. https://pdf.blucher.com.br/engineeringproceedings/1enei/078.pdf
  • Broock, W. A., Scheinkman, J. A., Dechert, W. D., and LeBaron, B. (1996). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474939608800353
  • Cheng, K., Hsueh, H. P., Ranjbar, O., Wang, M. C., and Chang, T. (2021). Urbanization, coal consumption and CO2 emissions nexus in China using bootstrap Fourier Granger causality test in quantiles. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 14, 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-020-00263-0.
  • Chiang, C. A. (2005). Matematiksel iktisadın temel yöntemleri. M. Sarımeşeli and Ş. Açıkgöz (Trans.). Gazi Kitabevi.
  • Cobb, C. W., and Douglas P. H. (1928). A theory of production. The American Economic Review, 18(1), 139-165. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811556
  • Cohen, D., and Soto, M. (2007). Growth and human capital: Good data, good results. Journal of Economic Growth, 12(1), 51-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-007-9011-5
  • Çakmak, E., and Gümüş, S. (2005). Türkiye’de beşerî sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme: Ekonometrik bir analiz (1960-2002). Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 60(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000001422
  • Çeştepe, H., and Gençel, H. (2019). Beşerî sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye için nedensellik analizi. Balkan Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(16), 139-146. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/775117
  • Çoban, M. N. (2020). Ekonomik kompleksite ve insani gelişmişlik ilişkisi: E7 ülkeleri için bir analiz. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(2), 467-479. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.659563
  • Denison, E. F. (1962). Education, economic growth, and gaps in information. Journal of Political Economy, 70 (5, part 2), 124-128. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1829108
  • Dickey, D. A., and Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348
  • Doğan, B. B. (2011). Kalkınma iktisadının XX. yüzyıldaki gelişim süreci, iktisat politikalarına etkisi ve son on yıllık konjonktürün disiplininin geleceğine olası etkileri. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(2), 41-83. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kosbed/issue/25697/271177
  • Eğilmez, M. (2022). Yapısal reformlar ve Türkiye. Remzi Kitabevi. 2. Baskı.
  • Ehrlich, I. (1990). The problem of development: Introduction. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5). Part 2: The problem of development: A conference of the institute for the study of free enterprise system, 1-11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937629
  • Ferrarini, B., and Scaramozzino P. (2016). Prouction complexity, adaptability and economic growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 37, 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2015.12.001
  • Giddens, A., and Sutton, P. W. (2016). Sosyolojide temel kavramlar. A. Esgin (Trans.). Phoenix Yayınları.
  • Gürkaynak, R., and Sayek-Böke, S. (2013). AKP döneminde Türkiye ekonomisi. Birikim, Aralık: 64-69. https://bilimakademisi.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/Birikim_2013_gurkaynak_sayek.pdf
  • Hartwig, J. (2012). Testing the growth effects of structural change. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23, 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2011.09.001
  • Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A., Bustos, S., Coscia, M., Simoes, A., and Yıldırım, M. A. (2014). The atlas of economic complexity: Mapping paths to prosperity. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9647.001.0001
  • Hausmann, R., Morales, J. R., and Santos, M. (2016). Economic complexity in Panama: Assessing opportunities for productive diversification. Harvard Kennedy School working paper no. RWP16-046.
  • Hidalgo, C. A., and Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10570-10575. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900943106
  • Karataş, M., and Çankaya, E. (2011). Türkiye’de beşerî sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisinin analizi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 18(1), 105-124. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yonveek/issue/13694/165738
  • Kepenek, Y., and Yentürk, N. (2004). Türkiye ekonomisi. Remzi Kitabevi.
  • Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., and Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
  • Macekura, S. (2013). The point four program and U.S. international development policy. Political Science Quarterly, 128(1), 127-160. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23563372
  • Manga, M., Bal, H., Algan, N., and Kandır, E. D. (2015). Beşerî sermaye, fiziksel sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: BRICS ülkeleri ve Türkiye örneği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(1), 45-60. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/cusosbil/issue/32041/353768
  • Matousek, R., and Tzeremes, N. G. (2021). The asymmetric impact of human capital on economic growth. Empirical Economics, 60(2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01789-z
  • Mıhçı, H. (1996). Kalkınma: Bir terim neyi anlatır? Ekonomik Yaklaşım Dergisi, 7(23), 65-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ey.10242
  • MIT’s Observatory of Economic Complexity. (2023). Economic complexity rankings. Retrieved June 18, 2023, from https://oec.world/en/rankings/legacy/eci
  • Nazlıoğlu, S., Gormus, N. A., and Soytas, U. (2016). Oil prices and real estate investment trusts (REITs): Gradual-shift causality and volatility transmission analysis. Energy Economics, 60, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.009
  • Nurkse, R. (1952). Growth in underdeveloped country: Some international aspect of the problem of economic development. The American Economic Review, 42(2), 571-583. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1910629
  • Park, J. (2006). Dispersion of human capital and economic growth. Journal of Macroeconomics,28,520-539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2004.09.004
  • Parkin, M., Powell, M., and Matthews, K. (2005). Economics. Addison-Wesley.
  • Peet, R., and Hartwick, E. (2009). Theories of development: Contentions, arguments, alternatives. Guilford Press.
  • Penn World Table version 10.01. Retrieved June 04, 2023, from https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/productivity/pwt/?lang=en.
  • Phillips, P. C., and Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
  • Schultz, W. T. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1818907
  • Shahbaz, M., Zakaria, M., Shahzad, S. J. H., and Mahalik, M. K. (2018). The energy consumption and economic growth nexus in top ten energy-consuming countries: Fresh evidence from using the quantile-on-quantile approach. Energy Economics, 71, 282-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.02.023
  • Soyyiğit, S. (2018). OECD kurucu ülkelerinde ekonomik kompleksite düzeyi ile kişi başına düşen GSYH arasındaki ilişki: Panel eş bütünleşme analizi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 21(2), 374-392. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.452901
  • Soyyiğit, S., Topuz, H., and Özekicioğlu, H. (2019). Ekonomik kompleksite, ihracat ve sabit sermaye yatırımlarının kişi başına düşen gelir üzerindeki etkisi: G20 ülkeleri örneği. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 393-407. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.518334
  • Stojkoski, V., and Kocarev, L. (2017). The relationship between growth and economic complexity: Evidence from Southeastern and Central Europe. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 77837. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/77837/3/MPRA_paper_77837.pdf
  • Şahin, H. (2011). Türkiye ekonomisi: Tarihsel gelişimi-bugünkü durumu. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi. 11. Baskı.
  • Turhan. Y. (2020). Kalkınma kavramının tarihsel süreci ve etimolojik analizi. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 29, 149-164. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.719140
  • Udeogu, E., Roy-Mukherjee, S., and Amakom, U. (2021). Does increasing product complexity and diversity cause economic growth in the long run? A GMM panel VAR evidence. Sage Journals Open, 11(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032918
  • World Bank. (2023). World development indicators database. Retrieved June 12, 2023, fromhttps://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
  • Yeldan, E. (2009). Kapitalizmin yeniden finansallaşması ve 2007/2008 krizi: Türkiye krizin neresinde?. Çalışma ve Toplum, 1(20), 11-28. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ct/issue/71809/1155285
  • Yıldız, B., and Akbulut Yıldız, G. (2019). Ekonomik karmaşıklık ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: Panel Bootstrap Granger nedensellik analizi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 15(2), 329-340. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2019252097
  • Zhu, S., and Li, R. (2017). Economic complexity, human capital and economic growth: Empirical research based on cross-country panel data. Applied Economics, 49(38), 3815-3828. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1270413

Türkiye'de Beşerî Sermaye, Fiziki Sermaye, Ekonomik Karmaşıklık ve Ekonomik Büyüme Bağlantısı: Kantil Bootstrap Fourier Granger Nedensellik Yaklaşımından Yeni Kanıtlar

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 37, 11 - 26, 01.01.2024

Tunahan Hacıimamoğlu , Oğuzhan Sungur

https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.1369367

Abstract

İktisadi kalkınma, toplumların sosyo-ekonomik refah seviyelerinin yükseldiğini gösteren önemli bir göstergedir. İktisadi kalkınmanın gerçekleşebilmesi için ülkelerin ekonomik, sosyal, kültürel ve politik alanlarda gelişmiş olması gerekmektedir. Bu bağlamda Türkiye, bugüne gelinen süreçte kalkınmış bir ülke görünümünden uzaktır. Bu doğrultuda bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’nin kalkınma sorunlarını değerlendirmektir. Bu amaç kapsamında Türkiye’de beşerî sermaye, fiziki sermaye ve ekonomik karmaşıklık endeksinin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi Cheng vd. (2021) tarafından yakın zamanda önerilen kantil bootstrap Fourier Granger nedensellik (BFGC-Q) yaklaşımı kullanılarak 1970-2017 dönemi için analiz edilmektedir. Analiz sonuçları, beşerî sermaye, fiziki sermaye ve ekonomik karmaşıklık endeksinin ekonomik büyüme üzerinde pozitif nedensel bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye, sürdürülebilir kalkınma için istikrarlı bir ekonomik modelde yabancı sermaye yatırımlarına ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Ayrıca, Türkiye’nin teorik ve uygulama düzeyinde eğitim, bilim ve teknolojiye önem vermesi ve yüksek teknolojili ürün yelpazesini çeşitlendirerek ihracattaki katma değer ve teknoloji düzeyini artırması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

Beşeri Sermaye Fiziki Sermaye Ekonomik Karmaşıklık Ekonomik Kalkınma Nedensellik

References

  • Alpay, Y., and Alkin, E. (2017). Olaylarla Türkiye ekonomisi: Yirminci yüzyıl Türkiye ekonomi tarihi. Hümanist Kitabevi.
  • Barro, R. J. (1989). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. NBER Working paper series, No: 3120.
  • Bayar, I. (2022). Ekonomik karmaşıklık indeksi ve ekonomik büyüme: CIVETS ülkelerinden ampirik kanıtlar. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 36, 237-251. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1052678
  • Benhabib, J., and Spiegel, M. M. (1994). The role of human capital in economic development: Evidence from aggregate cross-country data. Journal of Monetary Economics, 34, 143-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(94)90047-7
  • Boratav, K. (2018). Türkiye iktisat tarihi 1908-2015. İmge Kitabevi.
  • Bostancı, F. C., and Koç, S. (2022). Balkan ülkelerinde işsizlik histerisi mi doğal işsizlik oranı mı geçerli?: Fourier birim kök testleri uygulaması. Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri, 2022(2), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.56337/sbm.1167668
  • Brempong, K. G., and Wilson, M. (2004). Health human capital and economic growth in Sub-Saharan African and OECD countries. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 44(2), 296-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2003.07.002
  • Britto, G., Romero, J., Freitas, E., and Coelho, C. (2016). The great divide: Economic complexity and development paths in Brazil and South Korea. Blucher Engineering Proceedings, 3(4), 1404-1425. https://pdf.blucher.com.br/engineeringproceedings/1enei/078.pdf
  • Broock, W. A., Scheinkman, J. A., Dechert, W. D., and LeBaron, B. (1996). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474939608800353
  • Cheng, K., Hsueh, H. P., Ranjbar, O., Wang, M. C., and Chang, T. (2021). Urbanization, coal consumption and CO2 emissions nexus in China using bootstrap Fourier Granger causality test in quantiles. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 14, 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-020-00263-0.
  • Chiang, C. A. (2005). Matematiksel iktisadın temel yöntemleri. M. Sarımeşeli and Ş. Açıkgöz (Trans.). Gazi Kitabevi.
  • Cobb, C. W., and Douglas P. H. (1928). A theory of production. The American Economic Review, 18(1), 139-165. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811556
  • Cohen, D., and Soto, M. (2007). Growth and human capital: Good data, good results. Journal of Economic Growth, 12(1), 51-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-007-9011-5
  • Çakmak, E., and Gümüş, S. (2005). Türkiye’de beşerî sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme: Ekonometrik bir analiz (1960-2002). Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 60(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000001422
  • Çeştepe, H., and Gençel, H. (2019). Beşerî sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye için nedensellik analizi. Balkan Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(16), 139-146. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/775117
  • Çoban, M. N. (2020). Ekonomik kompleksite ve insani gelişmişlik ilişkisi: E7 ülkeleri için bir analiz. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(2), 467-479. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.659563
  • Denison, E. F. (1962). Education, economic growth, and gaps in information. Journal of Political Economy, 70 (5, part 2), 124-128. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1829108
  • Dickey, D. A., and Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348
  • Doğan, B. B. (2011). Kalkınma iktisadının XX. yüzyıldaki gelişim süreci, iktisat politikalarına etkisi ve son on yıllık konjonktürün disiplininin geleceğine olası etkileri. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(2), 41-83. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kosbed/issue/25697/271177
  • Eğilmez, M. (2022). Yapısal reformlar ve Türkiye. Remzi Kitabevi. 2. Baskı.
  • Ehrlich, I. (1990). The problem of development: Introduction. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5). Part 2: The problem of development: A conference of the institute for the study of free enterprise system, 1-11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937629
  • Ferrarini, B., and Scaramozzino P. (2016). Prouction complexity, adaptability and economic growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 37, 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2015.12.001
  • Giddens, A., and Sutton, P. W. (2016). Sosyolojide temel kavramlar. A. Esgin (Trans.). Phoenix Yayınları.
  • Gürkaynak, R., and Sayek-Böke, S. (2013). AKP döneminde Türkiye ekonomisi. Birikim, Aralık: 64-69. https://bilimakademisi.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/Birikim_2013_gurkaynak_sayek.pdf
  • Hartwig, J. (2012). Testing the growth effects of structural change. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23, 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2011.09.001
  • Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A., Bustos, S., Coscia, M., Simoes, A., and Yıldırım, M. A. (2014). The atlas of economic complexity: Mapping paths to prosperity. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9647.001.0001
  • Hausmann, R., Morales, J. R., and Santos, M. (2016). Economic complexity in Panama: Assessing opportunities for productive diversification. Harvard Kennedy School working paper no. RWP16-046.
  • Hidalgo, C. A., and Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10570-10575. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900943106
  • Karataş, M., and Çankaya, E. (2011). Türkiye’de beşerî sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisinin analizi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 18(1), 105-124. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yonveek/issue/13694/165738
  • Kepenek, Y., and Yentürk, N. (2004). Türkiye ekonomisi. Remzi Kitabevi.
  • Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., and Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
  • Macekura, S. (2013). The point four program and U.S. international development policy. Political Science Quarterly, 128(1), 127-160. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23563372
  • Manga, M., Bal, H., Algan, N., and Kandır, E. D. (2015). Beşerî sermaye, fiziksel sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: BRICS ülkeleri ve Türkiye örneği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(1), 45-60. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/cusosbil/issue/32041/353768
  • Matousek, R., and Tzeremes, N. G. (2021). The asymmetric impact of human capital on economic growth. Empirical Economics, 60(2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01789-z
  • Mıhçı, H. (1996). Kalkınma: Bir terim neyi anlatır? Ekonomik Yaklaşım Dergisi, 7(23), 65-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ey.10242
  • MIT’s Observatory of Economic Complexity. (2023). Economic complexity rankings. Retrieved June 18, 2023, from https://oec.world/en/rankings/legacy/eci
  • Nazlıoğlu, S., Gormus, N. A., and Soytas, U. (2016). Oil prices and real estate investment trusts (REITs): Gradual-shift causality and volatility transmission analysis. Energy Economics, 60, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.009
  • Nurkse, R. (1952). Growth in underdeveloped country: Some international aspect of the problem of economic development. The American Economic Review, 42(2), 571-583. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1910629
  • Park, J. (2006). Dispersion of human capital and economic growth. Journal of Macroeconomics,28,520-539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2004.09.004
  • Parkin, M., Powell, M., and Matthews, K. (2005). Economics. Addison-Wesley.
  • Peet, R., and Hartwick, E. (2009). Theories of development: Contentions, arguments, alternatives. Guilford Press.
  • Penn World Table version 10.01. Retrieved June 04, 2023, from https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/productivity/pwt/?lang=en.
  • Phillips, P. C., and Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
  • Schultz, W. T. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1818907
  • Shahbaz, M., Zakaria, M., Shahzad, S. J. H., and Mahalik, M. K. (2018). The energy consumption and economic growth nexus in top ten energy-consuming countries: Fresh evidence from using the quantile-on-quantile approach. Energy Economics, 71, 282-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.02.023
  • Soyyiğit, S. (2018). OECD kurucu ülkelerinde ekonomik kompleksite düzeyi ile kişi başına düşen GSYH arasındaki ilişki: Panel eş bütünleşme analizi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 21(2), 374-392. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.452901
  • Soyyiğit, S., Topuz, H., and Özekicioğlu, H. (2019). Ekonomik kompleksite, ihracat ve sabit sermaye yatırımlarının kişi başına düşen gelir üzerindeki etkisi: G20 ülkeleri örneği. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 393-407. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.518334
  • Stojkoski, V., and Kocarev, L. (2017). The relationship between growth and economic complexity: Evidence from Southeastern and Central Europe. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 77837. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/77837/3/MPRA_paper_77837.pdf
  • Şahin, H. (2011). Türkiye ekonomisi: Tarihsel gelişimi-bugünkü durumu. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi. 11. Baskı.
  • Turhan. Y. (2020). Kalkınma kavramının tarihsel süreci ve etimolojik analizi. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 29, 149-164. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.719140
  • Udeogu, E., Roy-Mukherjee, S., and Amakom, U. (2021). Does increasing product complexity and diversity cause economic growth in the long run? A GMM panel VAR evidence. Sage Journals Open, 11(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032918
  • World Bank. (2023). World development indicators database. Retrieved June 12, 2023, fromhttps://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
  • Yeldan, E. (2009). Kapitalizmin yeniden finansallaşması ve 2007/2008 krizi: Türkiye krizin neresinde?. Çalışma ve Toplum, 1(20), 11-28. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ct/issue/71809/1155285
  • Yıldız, B., and Akbulut Yıldız, G. (2019). Ekonomik karmaşıklık ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: Panel Bootstrap Granger nedensellik analizi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 15(2), 329-340. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2019252097
  • Zhu, S., and Li, R. (2017). Economic complexity, human capital and economic growth: Empirical research based on cross-country panel data. Applied Economics, 49(38), 3815-3828. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1270413
There are 55 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Macroeconomics (Other)
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Tunahan Hacıimamoğlu 0000-0003-1474-8506

Oğuzhan Sungur 0000-0001-6897-4926

Publication Date January 1, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024 Volume: 11 Issue: 37

Cite

APA Hacıimamoğlu, T., & Sungur, O. (2024). Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach. İnsan Ve İnsan, 11(37), 11-26. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.1369367
AMA Hacıimamoğlu T, Sungur O. Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach. Journal of İnsan ve İnsan. January 2024;11(37):11-26. doi:10.29224/insanveinsan.1369367
Chicago Hacıimamoğlu, Tunahan, and Oğuzhan Sungur. “Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach”. İnsan Ve İnsan 11, no. 37 (January 2024): 11-26. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.1369367.
EndNote Hacıimamoğlu T, Sungur O (January 1, 2024) Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach. İnsan ve İnsan 11 37 11–26.
IEEE T. Hacıimamoğlu and O. Sungur, “Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach”, Journal of İnsan ve İnsan, vol. 11, no. 37, pp. 11–26, 2024, doi: 10.29224/insanveinsan.1369367.
ISNAD Hacıimamoğlu, Tunahan - Sungur, Oğuzhan. “Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach”. İnsan ve İnsan 11/37 (January 2024), 11-26. https://doi.org/10.29224/insanveinsan.1369367.
JAMA Hacıimamoğlu T, Sungur O. Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach. Journal of İnsan ve İnsan. 2024;11:11–26.
MLA Hacıimamoğlu, Tunahan and Oğuzhan Sungur. “Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach”. İnsan Ve İnsan, vol. 11, no. 37, 2024, pp. 11-26, doi:10.29224/insanveinsan.1369367.
Vancouver Hacıimamoğlu T, Sungur O. Human Capital, Physical Capital, Economic Complexity, and Economic Growth Nexus in Türkiye: New Evidence from Bootstrap Fourier Granger Causality in Quantiles Approach. Journal of İnsan ve İnsan. 2024;11(37):11-26.
 Download Cover Image