Yoksullaştıran Büyüme: Seçilmiş Ülkeler İçin Bir Panel Veri Yaklaşımı

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 36 Sayı: 4, 738 - 744, 31.12.2021

Levent Şahin

https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.692785

Öz

Çalışmada, panel veri analizi kullanılarak, yoksullaştıran büyüme hipotezi kapsamında GSYİH ile küresel demir, küresel pamuk, küresel petrol ve küresel bakır fiyatları arasındaki ilişki analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada analizi yapılan ülkeler Çin, Şili, Çekya, Yunanistan, Macaristan, Hindistan, Güney Kore, Malezya, Pakistan, Peru, Filipinler, Polonya, Tayland ve Türkiye gibi gelişmekte olan ülkelerdir. Veriler 2003-2018 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Analiz sonuçları küresel pamuk ve petrol fiyatlarındaki artışın bu ülkelerin GSYİH’lerini düşürdüğünü, küresel demir ve bakır fiyatlarındaki artışın bu ülkelerin GSYİH’lerini artırdığını göstermektedir. Bu nedenle politika yapıcılar yenilenebilir enerji, yerli tarım ve madencilik sektörlerine yatırımı desteklemelidirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yoksullaştıran büyüme hipotezi, GSYİH, Panel data analizi

Teşekkür

İlginiz için teşekkürler

Immiserizing Growth: A Panel Data Approach for Selected Countries

Öz

In the study, using panel data analysis, the relationship between GDP and global iron, global cotton, global oil, and global copper prices were analyzed under the impoverishing growth hypothesis. The countries analyzed in this study are developing countries such as China, Chile, Czechia, Greece, Hungary, India, South Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Thailand, and Turkey. The data covers the period 2003-2018. The analysis results show that the increase in global cotton and oil prices decreases the GDP of these countries, and the increase in global iron and copper prices increases the GDPs of these countries. Therefore, policymakers should support investment in renewable energy, domestic agriculture, and mining sectors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Immiserizing growth hypothesis, GDP, Panel data analysis

Kaynakça

• Acemoğlu, D. (2007). Introduction to modern economic growth: Parts 1-5. Access address: http://users.econ.umn.edu/~guvenen/DaronBook1.pdf
• Baltagi, H. B. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
• Bhagwati, J. (1958). Immiserizing growth: A geometrical note. Review of Economic Studies, 25(3), 201-205.
• Bhattacharyya, A., Biswas, B. (1987). Specific factors, unemployment and immiserizing growth in a small open economy. Utah: Economic Research Institute Study Papers. Paper 450.
• Breitung, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. Access address: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/61764/1/722394276.pdf
• Choi, E. K. (2001). Neighbour-immiserizing growth: The Asian Crisis. The Japanese Economic Review, 4(52), 405-416.
• Collie, D. R. (2009). Immiserizing growth and the metzler paradox in the ricardian model. Cardiff: Cardiff Business School Working Paper Series, ISSN 1749-6101, E2009/11.
• Dinopoulos, E. (2005). Immiserizing growth in expanding economies. Access address: http://www.columbia.edu/~ap2231/jbconference/Papers/Dinopoulos_Bhagwati%20Conference.pdf
• Edgeworth, F.Y. (1894). Theory of international values. The Economic Journal, 4(16), 606-638.
• Emery, R.F. (1967). The relation of exports and economic growth. International Review for Social Sciences, 20(4), 470–486.
• Greene, H. W. (2012). Econometric analysis. Westford: Pearson Education.
• Hsiao, C. (2006). Panel data analysis – advantages and challenges. California: IEPR Working Paper No: 06. 49.
• Johnson, H.G. (1967). The possibility of ıncome losses from ıncreased efficiency or factor accumulation in the presence of tariffs. The Economic Journal, 77(305), 151-154.
• Kaempfer, G. W. (1989). Immiserising growth with globally optimal policie. Journal of Economic Studies, 16(1).
• Kaplinsky, R. (2004). Immiserising growth. Accessaddress:http://www.soc.duke.edu/sloan_2004/Papers/Memos/Kaplinsky_immiserising%20growth_25June04.pdf
• Levin, A., Lin, C. F. (1992), “unit root test in panel data: Asymptotic and finite sample properties. San Diego: University of California at San Diego, Discussion Paper No: 92-93.
• Levin, A., Lin, C. F. (1993). Unit root test in panel data: New results. San Diego: University of California at San Diego, Discussion Paper No: 93-56.
• Levin, A., Lin, C. F., Chu, J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
• Maddala, G.S., Shaowen, W. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and new simple test. Oxford Bulletinin of Economics and Statistics, SpeciaI issue, 631-652.
• Pryor, F.L. (2007). Immiserizing growth as seen by Bhagwati, Samuelson and others. Journal of Economic Education, 38(2), 208-214.
• Raisová, M., Ďurčová, J. (2014). Economic growth-supply and demand perspective. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 184-191.
• Samuelson, P. A. (2004). Where Ricardo and Mill rebut and confirm arguments of mainstream economists supporting globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(3), 135-47.
• Upreti, P. (2015). Factors affecting economic growth in developing countries. Access address: http://business.uni.edu/economics/ themes/Upreti. pdf
• Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2012). İleri panel veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta yayınları.
• Todorova, T. (2010). World demand as a determinant of immiserizing growth. iBusiness, 2(3): 255-267.