Economic Growth and Terrorism in the Middle East: A Heterogeneous Panel Causality Approach

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 1, 17 - 27, 29.06.2022

Yusuf Ünsal , İbrahim Tuğrul Çınar

Öz

This study aims to examine the relationship between terrorism and economic growth for a panel of fifteen Middle Eastern countries for the 2003-2019 period. Panel data analysis has the advantage that it provides more information, more variability, and less collinearity in the data when compared to single country time series analysis. Besides this advantage, most of the cross-country panel data studies in the terrorism and economic growth literature assume that terrorist activities are homogeneous across countries. We used the Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test accounting for cross-sectional heterogeneity, which is widely ignored in most panel data studies on terrorism and economic growth nexus. Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality test results reveal in favor of a uni-directional causal relationship between terrorism and economic growth in the Middle East for the overall panel. We also find that this uni-directional relationship is ruled by the strong country-specific influence of Iraq.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Middle East, Terrorism, Economic Growth

Orta Doğu’da Ekonomik Büyüme ve Terörizm: Bir Heterojen Panel Nedensellik Yaklaşımı

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2003-2019 yılları arasını kapsayan dönem için on beş Orta Doğu ülkesi için terörizm ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Panel veri analizi, tek ülkeli zaman serisi analizlerine kıyasla verilerde daha fazla değişkenlik, daha fazla bilgi ve daha az çoklu doğrusallık sağlama gibi avantajlar sağlamaktadır. Bu avantajlarına rağmen, terörizm ve ekonomik büyüme literatüründeki ülkeler arası panel veri çalışmalarının çoğu, terörist faaliyetlerin ülkeler arasında homojen olduğunu varsaymaktadır. Bu kapsamda, ekonomik büyüme ve terörizm arasındaki ilişkiyi inceleyen panel veri çalışmalarının pek çoğunda göz ardı edilen kesitler arası heterojeniteyi dikkate alarak Dumitrescu-Hurlin tarafından geliştirilen panel nedensellik analizi yapılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, Orta Doğu’da terörizmden ekonomik büyümeye doğru tek yönlü bir nedensellik ortaya koymaktadır. Ülkeler bazında ayrıştırılmış nedensellik sonuçları ise, bu tek yönlü nedenselliğin, esas olarak Irak gibi terör faaliyetlerinin yoğun olduğu bir ülke tarafından domine edildiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Orta Doğu, Terörizm, Ekonomik Büyüme

Kaynakça

• ABADIE, A. and GARDEAZABAL, J. (2003). The Economic Cost of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque County. The American Economic Review, 93 (1), 113-132.
• ABADIE, A. and GARDEAZABAL, J. (2008). Terrorism and the World Economy. European Economic Review, 52(1), 1-27.
• BARTH J.R., LI T., MCCARTHY D., PHUMIWASANA T. and YAGO G. (2006). Economic Impacts of Global Terrorism: From Munich to Bali. Capital Studies Research Report, Milken Institute.
• BAYAR, Y. and GAVRILETEA, M.D. (2018). Peace, terrorism and economic growth in Middle East and North African countries. Quality & Quantity. 52, 2373–2392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0671-8
• BİLGEL, F. and KARAHASAN, B. C. (2013). The Economic Costs of Separatist Terrorism in Turkey. Research Institute of Applied Economics Working Paper 2013/22, Barcelona.
• BLOMBERG, B.S., HESS, G.D. and ORPHANIDES, A. (2004). The Macroeconomic Consequences of Terrorism. Journal of Monetary Economics, 51 (5), 1007-1032.
• BOLZ, F., DUDONIS, K. J. and SCHULZ, D. P. (2001). The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures, and Techniques (Second Edition). CRC Press, U.S.A.
• BREUSCH, T.S. and PAGAN, A.R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification Tests in Econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239-253.
• CHOI, S.W. (2015). Economic Growth and Terrorism: Domestic, International, and Suicide. Oxford Economic Papers, 67 (1), 157-181.doi: 10.1093/oep/gpu036.
• CHUDIK, A. and PESARAN, M. H. (2013). Large Panel Data Models with Cross-Sectional Dependence: A Survey. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute Working Paper No. 153. Retrieved from http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/ documents/institute/wpapers/2013/0153.pdf.
• CONTE, A. (2010). Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism: Commonwealth Approaches: The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg.
• DE MESQUITA, E. B. (2005). The Quality of Terror. American Journal of Political Science, 49 (3), 515–530.
• DUMITRESCU, E.I. and HURLIN, C. (2012). Testing for Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
• FATIMA, M., MADIHA L., SAMIA F. C., NAZİK H. and SUMAIRA A. (2014). Terrorism and its Impact on Economic Growth: Evidence from Pakistan and India. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 22 (7), 1033-1043.
• FINE, J. (2015). Political Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: From Holy War to Modern Terror. Rowman and Littlefield, U.S.A.
• GAIBULLOEV, K. and SANDLER, T. (2009). The Impact of Terrorism and Conflıcts on Growth in Asia. Economics & Politics, 21, (3), 359–383.
• GENÇTÜRK, T. (2012). Terör Kavramı Ve Uluslararası Terörizme Farklı Yaklaşımlar. Başkent Üniversitesi Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi. http://sam.baskent.edu.tr/makaleler/tgencturk/TerorUluslararasi.pdf
• GRIES T., KRIEGER T. and MEIERRIEKS, D. (2009). Causal Linkages Between Domestic Terrorism and Economic Growth. Center for International Economics Working Papers Series. No: 2009- 2, Germany.
• PESARAN, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Working Papers in Economics. No. 435, University of Cambridge.
• PESARAN, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test In The Presence Of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal Of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
• SALEEM, Q., SIDRA, S., RAUF, A. and SIDDIQUE, H. M. A. (2020). Impact of Terrorism on Economic Growth in South Asian Country. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 10(4), 185-191.
• SANDLER, T. and ENDERS, W. (2008). Economic Consequences of Terrorism in Developed and Developing Countries: An Overview. In Keefer P. and Loayza, N. (Ed.), Terrorism Economic Development and Political Openness (pp. 17-47). Cambridge University Press.
• SHAHRESTANI, H. and ANARAKI, N. K. (2008). Protectivity versus Productivity and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Selected Countries. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 7 (10), 43-51.
• ŞİT, M. and KARADAĞ, H. (2019). Ortadoğu’daki Terörün Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkileri: Panel Veri Analizi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8 (2), 1313-1329. Retrieved from http://www.itobiad.com/issue/44987/490783.
• TAVARES, J. (2004). The Open Society Assesses its Enemies: Shocks, Disasters and Terrorist Attacks. Journal of Monetary Economics, 51(5), 1039-1070.
• ZAKARIA, M., JUN, W. and AHMED, H. (2019). Effect of terrorism on economic growth in Pakistan: an empirical analysis. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 32(1), 1794-1812.