SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2

Examining Kaldorian Growth Model for Developing Countries: Findings from Panel Data Analyses

Kaldor Büyüme Modelinin Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler İçin Sınanması: Panel Veri Analizlerinden Bulgular

Ömer Tuğsal DORUK
Pages
31–50
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The obtained findings show that industrial production has a significant effect on economic growth, however, this effect is not persistent in the long run according to the impulse-response analysis results

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Industrial production is denoted as an engine for growth by Kaldor 1966 .
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this paper, the Kaldorian growth model is examined for 118 developing countries between 1990 and 2016 by using impulse-response analysis, causality analysis, and variance decomposition analysis which are based on Panel VAR analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The obtained findings show that industrial production has a significant effect on economic growth, however, this effect is not persistent in the long run according to the impulse-response analysis results
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sanayiye Dayalı Büyüme · Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler · Panel VAR analizi

Abstract

Industrial production is denoted as an engine for growth by Kaldor 1966 . According to Kaldor, the main indicator of economic growth is industrialization. Thus, industrial production is defined as an engine of growth KEG-Kaldorian Engine of Growth . There should be a shift from agricultural production to industrial production for economic growth in the Kaldorian growth model. In this paper, the Kaldorian growth model is examined for 118 developing countries between 1990 and 2016 by using impulse-response analysis, causality analysis, and variance decomposition analysis which are based on Panel VAR analysis. The obtained findings show that industrial production has a significant effect on economic growth, however, this effect is not persistent in the long run according to the impulse-response analysis results

Özet

Kaldor 1966 tarafından büyümenin lokomotifi olarak sanayi üretimi gösterilmektedir. Kaldor’un temel varsayımlarına göre ekonomik büyümenin ana göstergesi sanayileşmedir. Dolayısıyla sanayi üretimi, ekonomik büyümenin motoru olarak adlandırılmaktadır KEG-Kaldorian Engine of Growth . Kaldor’a göre ekonomik büyüme için tarımsal üretimden sanayileşmeye doğru bir kayma olması gerekmektedir. Çalışmada Kaldor’un büyüme modeli Panel VAR analizi vasıtasıyla 118 ülke için 1990-2016 yılları arasında etki tepki analizi, nedensellik analizi ve varyans hata tahmin ayrıştırması çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Etki tepki analizinde elde edilen sonuçlara göre gelişmekte olan ülkeler için sanayileşme, ekonomik büyümenin üzerinde önemli düzeyde etkiye sahipken, bu etkinin uzun vadede kalıcı olmadığı görülmektedir. Panel Granger nedensellik testi sonuçlarına göre sanayileşmeden ekonomik büyümeye bir nedensellik ilişkisi ve büyüme ve tarım sektörü arasında iki taraflı bir nedensellik ilişkisi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Panel varyans hata ayrıştırma analizi sonuçları da KEG’i destekler niteliktedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

DORUK, Ö. T. (2019). Examining Kaldorian Growth Model for Developing Countries: Findings from Panel Data Analyses. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2, 31–50. https://ajindex.com/articles/125318

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Arısoy, İ. (2013). “Kaldor yasası çerçevesinde Türkiye’de sanayi sektörü ve iktisadi büyüme ilişkisinin sınanması”. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 8(1), 143-162.
  2. Ateşoğlu, H.S. (1993). “Manufacturing and economic growth in the United States”. Applied Economics, 25, 67-69.
  3. Bairam, E.(1991). “Economic growth and Kaldor law: The case of Turkey:1925-78”. Applied Economics, 23, 1277-1280.
  4. Baum, C. (2013).
  5. Dynamic Panel Data Estimators, EC 823: Applied Econometrics, Boston College, Spring 2013 Ders http://fmwww.bc.edu/ECC/S2013/823/EC823.S2013.nn05.slides.pdf
  6. Slaytları, Erişim Cantore, N.; Lennon, C. ve Clara, N. (2016). “Fast and furious A Kaldorian analysis of dynamic industries”. UNIDO ınclusive and sustainable industrial development working paper series WP no.5. Cantore, N.; Clara, M., Lavopa, A. ve Soare, C. (2017). “Manufacturing as an engine of growth: Which is the best fuel?”. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 42, 56–66.
  7. Carmignani, F. ve Mandeville, T. (2014). “Never been industrialized: A tale of African structural change”. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,31, 124–137.
  8. Chang, H.-J. (2003). “Kicking away the ladder: Infant industry promotion in historical perspective”. Oxford Development Studies, 31 (1), 21-32.
  9. Cornwall, J. (1977). Modern capitalism. It’s growth and transformation. New York: St. Martin’s Press,
  10. Çetin, M. (2009). “Kaldor büyüme yasasının ampirik analizi: Türkiye ve AB ülkeleri örneği (1981-2007)”. Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi İİBF Dergisi, 11(1), 355-373.
  11. Diaz-Bautista, A. (2003). “Mexico’s industrial engine of growth: Cointegration and causality”. Revista Momento Economico, 126, 34-41.
  12. Doruk, Ö.T.; Kardaşlar, A. ve Kandır, E.D. (2013). “Turkish Economy’s great transformation: Industry, agriculture and economic growth in the process after 1980: A review from the perspective of Kaldor’s first growth law”. The Empirical Economics Letters, 12(6), 587-592.
  13. Drakopolous, S.A ve Theodossiou, I.T. (1991). “Kaldorian approach to Greek economic growth” Applied Economics, 23, 1683-1689.
  14. Fagerberg, J. ve Verspagen, B. (1999).Modern capitalism in the 1970s and 1980s. M. Setterfield (Ed.), Growth, employment and inflation içinde (113-126. ss.) Houndmills, Basingstoke: MacMillan. Fagerberg, J. ve Verspagen, B. (2002). “Technology gaps, innovation diffusion and transformation: An evolutionary interpretation”. Research Policy, 31 (8-9), 1291- 1304 Felipe, J., Leon-Ledesmea, M., Lanzafame, M. ve Estrada, G. (2007). “Sectoral e