Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2019 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 42

Demand Regime of Turkey: A Post-Keynesian Econometric Analysis

Türkiye’nin Talep Rejimi: Post-Keynesyen Ekonometrik Bir Analiz

Pages
163–180
Publication Date
2019-10-31
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)

According to the results of the study, the demand regime of Turkey is found to be wage-led.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to analyse, from a Post-Keynesian perspective, how factor income distribution affects growth potential of Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To do this, the study estimates Turkey’s demand regime between 1998-2018 by using quarterly data on the basis of the model developed by Bhaduri and Marglin (1990) and through the empirical approach of Naastepad (2006).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the study, the demand regime of Turkey is found to be wage-led.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Büyüme · Fonksiyonel Gelir Dağılımı · Post Keynesyen İktisat

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse, from a Post-Keynesian perspective, how factor income distribution affects growth potential of Turkey. To do this, the study estimates Turkey’s demand regime between 1998-2018 by using quarterly data on the basis of the model developed by Bhaduri and Marglin (1990) and through the empirical approach of Naastepad (2006). According to the results of the study, the demand regime of Turkey is found to be wage-led. In other words, positive effect of the expansion in consumption expenditures on economic growth triggered by increased wage shares is found to be greater than its contractionary effects on investment and export. According to the empirical results, it is argued that pro-labor economic policies would make positive contribution to economic growth in Turkey.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı emek ve sermaye arasındaki gelir dağılımının Türkiye’nin büyüme potansiyelini nasıl etkilediğini Post-Keynesyen bir açıdan incelemektir. Bu doğrultuda çalışma Bhaduri ve Marglin’in (1990) geliştirdiği model temelinde Naastepad’ın (2006) ampirik yaklaşımı aracılığıyla 1998-2019 yılları arasında çeyrek dönemlik veriler yardımıyla Türkiye’nin talep rejimini tahmin etmektedir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre adı geçen zaman aralığında talep rejimi ücret çekişli bulunmuştur. Diğer bir deyişle ücret paylarındaki artıştan kaynaklanan tüketim harcamalarındaki genişlemenin büyüme üzerindeki olumlu etkisinin, yatırım ve ihracat üzerindeki daraltıcı etkisinden büyük olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu ampirik sonuçlar temelinde emek yanlısı iktisat politikalarının ekonomik büyümeye olumlu katkıda bulunacağı ileri sürülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

BÖLÜKOĞLU, A. (2019). Demand Regime of Turkey: A Post-Keynesian Econometric Analysis. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 42, 163–180. https://ajindex.com/articles/139840

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992, Mart). A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323-351. doi:10.3386/w3223 Amadeo, E. J. (1986).
  2. Notes on Capacity Utilisation, Distribution and Accumulation. Contributions to Political Economy, 5, 83-94. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.cpe.a035705Baum, C. F. (2006). An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using STATA. College Station: STATA Press. A.F. Aysan & Y.S. Hacihasanoglu (2007), “Investigation on the Determinants of Turkish ExportBoom in 2000s”, Working Papers 2007/19, Bogazici University, Department of Economics. Bhaskar, V. & A. Glyn (1995), “Investment and profitability: the evidence from the advanced countries”, in: G. Epstein & H. Gintis (eds.), Macroeconomic Policy after the Conservative Era: Studies in Investment, Saving and Finance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 175-196.
  3. Baum, C.F. (2006), An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using STATA, College Station: STATA Press.
  4. Balcilar, M. & H. Bal & N. Algan & M. Demiral (2014), “Türkiye’in İhracat Performansı: İhracat Hacminin Temel Belirleyicilerinin İncelenmesi (1995-2012)”, Ege Academic Review, 14(3), 451-462.
  5. Bhaduri, A., & Marglin, S. (1990, Aralık). Unemployment and the real wage: the economic basis for contesting political ideologies. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14(4), 375-393. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035141 Blecker, R. A. (2002). Distribution, demand and growth in neo-Kaleckian macro-models. M. Setterfield içinde, The Economics of Demand-led Growth, Challenging the Supply-Side Vision of the Long Run (s. 129-152). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Bowles, S., & Boyer, R. (1995). Wages, aggregate demand, and employment in an open economy: an empirical investigation. G. Epstein, & G. Gİntis içinde, Macroeconomic Policy After the Conservative Era (s. 143-171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Dutt, A. K. (1984, Mart 1). Stagnation, income distribution and monopoly power. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8(1), 25-40. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035533 Dutt, A. K. (1990). Growth, distribution and uneven development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Ederer, S., & Stockhammer, E. (2007). Wages and aggregate demand in France: An empirical investigation. E. Hein, & A. Truger içinde, Money, Distribution, and Economic Policy- Alternatives to Orthodox Macroeconomics (s. 138-140). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Gollin, D. (2002, Nisan). Getting Income Shares Right. Journal of Political Economy, 110(2), 458-474. doi:10.108