The other results have shown that total factor productivity, labor, and capital have the greatest impact on economic growth, while the variables with the smallest impact are public expenditures, consumption expenditures, and human capital, respectively.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to empirically analyze the impact of capital stock, employment level, human capital, total factor productivity, openness policy, government spending and household consumption on growth in South Korea between 1965 and 2017.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We have been reached that the effect of trade openness policies on growth was insignificant among the independent variables at the result of regression analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The other results have shown that total factor productivity, labor, and capital have the greatest impact on economic growth, while the variables with the smallest impact are public expenditures, consumption expenditures, and human capital, respectively.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Growth · Regression Analyze · South Korea
Özet
The aim of this study is to empirically analyze the impact of capital stock, employment level, human capital, total factor productivity, openness policy, government spending and household consumption on growth in South Korea between 1965 and 2017. Because of this reason, regression analysis was performed in the time series to observe the effects of variables. We have been reached that the effect of trade openness policies on growth was insignificant among the independent variables at the result of regression analysis. The other results have shown that total factor productivity, labor, and capital have the greatest impact on economic growth, while the variables with the smallest impact are public expenditures, consumption expenditures, and human capital, respectively.
ARSLAN, G., KASA, H. (2020). FREE MARKET ECONOMY AND THE EFFECT OF MACROECONOMIC FACTORS ON GROWTH: THE CASE OF SOUTH KOREA. Ekonomi Maliye İşletme Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 33–45. https://ajindex.com/articles/11642
Bank, W. (2010). The World Bank Annual Report 2010: Year in Review: World Bank. Clements, M. P. (1994). New directions in econometric practice, W. W. Charemza and D. F. Deadman, Edward Elgar Publishing. Aldershot, 1992. ISBN 1-85278-461-x, hardcover, £45.00, pp. 370. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 9(1), 99-101. doi:10.1002/jae.3950090108 Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 1057-1072.
Eğilmez, A. M. (2018). Değişim sürecinde Türkiye: Osmanlı'dan Cumhuriyet'e sosyo-ekonomik bir değerlendirme: Remzi Kitabevi.
Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., & Timmer, M. P. (2015). The next generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review, 105(10), 3150-3182.
Harvey, D. (2005). The new imperialism: OUP Oxford. Janelli, R. L. (2001).
Kae H. Chung, Hak Chong Lee, and Ku Hyun Jung. Korean Management: Global Strategy and Cultural Transformation. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 49(4), 910-915. doi:10.1086/452534 Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
Şenses, F. (2004). Neoliberal Küreselleşme Kalkınma İçin Bir Fırsat mı, Engel mi? Kalkınma ve Küreselleşme, 1, 13-54.
Yavuz, G. (2007). Washington Uzlaşması'ndan Post-Washington Uzlaşması'na: Kalkınma Gündeminin Biçimlenişinde" Yeni Kurumcu İktisat" Etkisi. Ekonomik Yaklasim, 18(64), 23-44.
Yildirim, C. (2011). Birinci Ve İkinci Nesil Washington Uzlaşmasi: Neoliberal İktisat Politikalarinin 1980'den Sonraki Evrimi. International Journal Of Economic & Social Research, 7(2).