Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2017 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 34

Is There Income Convergence between NUTS 2 Territories in Turkey? A Spatial Statistical and Spatial Econometrics Contribution

Türkiye’de İBBS 2 Bölgeleri Arasında Gelir Yakınsaması Var Mıdır? Mekânsal Ekonometrik Bir Katkı

Pages
145–160
Publication Date
2017-10-31
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)

In addition to the conclusions of the study, it was found that there wasn’t a positive effect of territorial public investments on territorial income convergence.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this research, the existence of income convergence between NUTS 2 (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 2nd level) territories was analyzed for 1987-2001 and 2004-2011 terms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to classical convergence analyses, territorial income convergence was occurred in high speed between NUTS 2 territories of Turkey during 1987-2001 and 2004-2011 terms; on the other hand according to spatial statistical methods convergence was occurred either quite slow or not occurred.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition to the conclusions of the study, it was found that there wasn’t a positive effect of territorial public investments on territorial income convergence.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Neoklasik Yakınsama · Mekânsal Yakınsama · SAR

Abstract

In this research, the existence of income convergence between NUTS 2 (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 2nd level) territories was analyzed for 1987-2001 and 2004-2011 terms. For convergence analyses, spatial econometrics methods (SAR, SEM) were used, as well as classical methods. According to classical convergence analyses, territorial income convergence was occurred in high speed between NUTS 2 territories of Turkey during 1987-2001 and 2004-2011 terms; on the other hand according to spatial statistical methods convergence was occurred either quite slow or not occurred. In addition to the conclusions of the study, it was found that there wasn’t a positive effect of territorial public investments on territorial income convergence.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Türkiye’nin İBBS 2( İstatistiki Bölge Birimleri Sınıflandırması 2. Düzey) bölgeleri arasında gelir yakınsamasının varlığı 1987-2001 ve 2004-2011 dönemleri için analiz edilmiştir. Yakınsama analizlerinde klasik yöntemlerin yanı sıra mekânsal ekonometrik (SAR, SEM) yöntemler de kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre Türkiye’nin İBBS 2 bölgeleri arasında 1987-2001 ve 2004-2011 dönemlerinde klasik yakınsama analizlerine göre yüksek hızlarda bölgesel gelir yakınsamasının gerçekleştiği, öte yandan mekânsal yakınsama analizlerine göre ise yakınsamanın ya çok yavaş ya da olmadığı gözlenmiştir. Çalışma sonuçlarına ek olarak bölgesel kamu yatırımlarının bölgesel gelir yakınsaması üzerinde olumlu bir etkisinin olmadığı tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNDEM, F. (2017). Is There Income Convergence between NUTS 2 Territories in Turkey? A Spatial Statistical and Spatial Econometrics Contribution. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 34, 145–160. https://ajindex.com/articles/139431

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Abreu, Maria; Henri L. F. De Groot, Raymond J.G.M. Florax, (2004). “Space and Growth: A Survey of Empirical Evidence and Methods”, Tinbergen Institute Working Paper No. TI 04-129/3. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.631007 (20.03.2016)
  2. Aldan, Altan ve Esma Gaygısız (2006). “Convergence Across Provinces of Turkey: A Spatial Analyses” TCMB Working Paper. http://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/2006c766-a828-43bc-bcf1-317ab46262d0/WP0609ENG.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE2006c766-a828-43bc-bcf1-317ab46262d0 (15.03.2014)
  3. Altınbaş, Sevgi; Fatma Doğruel, Merih Güneş (2002). “Türkiye’de Bölgesel Yakınsama: Kalkınmakta Olan İller Yaklaşımı Başarılı Mı?”. http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~ehrbar/erc2002/pdf/P192 (10.03.2014)
  4. Anselin, Luc ve Anil. K. Bera (1998). “Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models With an Introduction To Spatial Econometrics”. Statistics Textbooks and Monographs, Vol. 155, s. 237-290.
  5. Anselin, Luc (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods And Models. NewYork: Springer Science and Bussiness Media Anselin, Luc (1995). “Local Indicators Of Spatial Association-LISA”. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 27, No: 2, s. 93-115.
  6. Anselin, Luc (2005). Exploring Spatial Data With GeoDaTM: A Workbook. Urbana. Arbia, Giuseppe (2006). Spatial Econometrics: Statistical Foundations And Applications To Regional Convergence. Almanya: Springer Yayınları Barro, Robert J. ve Sala-i-Martin Xavier (1992). “Convergence”, Journal of Political Economy, s. 223-251.
  7. Barro, Robert J. ve Sala-i-Martin Xavier. (2004). Economic Growth. Massachusettes: MIT Press.
  8. Bayraktar-Sağlam, Bahar ve Hakan Yetkiner (2014).“A Romerian Contribution To The Empirics Of Economic Growth”, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 36, No: 2, s. 257-272.
  9. Bouayad-Agha, Salima, Nadine Turpin ve Védrine, Lionel (2013). “Fostering The Development Of European Regions: A Spatial Dynamic Panel Data Analysis Of The Impact Of Cohesion Policy”, Regional Studies, Vol. 47, No: 9, s. 1573-1593.
  10. Canova, Fabio ve Albert Marcet (1995). “The Poor Stay Poor: Non-Convergence Across Countries And Regions”, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 1265, http://ssrn.com/abstract=289497 (15.03.2014)
  11. Caselli, Francesco, Gerardo Esquivel ve Fernando Lefort (1996). “Reopening The Convergence Debate: A New Look At Cross-Country Growth Empirics”, Journal Of Economic Growth, Vol. 1, No: 3, s. 363-389.
  12. Cashin, Paul ve Ratna Sahay (1996). “Regional Economic Growth And Convergence in India”. Finance and Development-English Edition, Vol. 33, No:1, s. 49-52.