SavedAdd your journal

Journals / NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

MACROECONOMIC VULNERABILITY AND TRADE: EVIDENCE FROM ARDL BOUNDS TEST AND TODA-YAMAMOTO CAUSALITY ANALYSIS

MAKROEKONOMİK KIRILGANLIK VE DIŞ TİCARET: ARDL SINIR TESTİ VE TODA-YAMAMOTO NEDENSELLİK ANALİZİNDEN KANITLAR

Selin Kaya(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9174-1530
Canan Şentürk(Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi)0000-0001-7714-844X
Pages
235–252
Publication Date
2024-12-31
🏛️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, bidirectional causality is detected between both macroeconomic vulnerability and imports, and between exports and imports.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study aims to examine the relationship between macroeconomic vulnerability and foreign trade for the Turkish economy, which is among both developing and fragile economies, in the period 1994-2022.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this regard, first of all, a macroeconomic vulnerability index for Turkey is calculated based on the six leading indicators defined for developing economies in the FED (2014) monetary policy report.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, bidirectional causality is detected between both macroeconomic vulnerability and imports, and between exports and imports.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:makroekonomik kırılganlık · ihracat · ithalat

Abstract

The study aims to examine the relationship between macroeconomic vulnerability and foreign trade for the Turkish economy, which is among both developing and fragile economies, in the period 1994-2022. In this regard, first of all, a macroeconomic vulnerability index for Turkey is calculated based on the six leading indicators defined for developing economies in the FED (2014) monetary policy report. The relationship between macroeconomic vulnerability index and foreign trade is tested with the ARDL Bounds Test approach and Toda-Yamamoto causality analysis. According to the ARDL Bounds Test findings, there is a statistically significant relationship between the macroeconomic vulnerability index and both export and import variables in the long term. The error correction coefficient also shows that deviations from equilibrium in the short term will converge to the long-term equilibrium and re-balance after 1.03 years. Toda-Yamamoto causality analysis findings also support the ARDL results. One-way causality is observed from exports to macroeconomic vulnerability. In addition, bidirectional causality is detected between both macroeconomic vulnerability and imports, and between exports and imports.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, hem gelişmekte olan, hem de kırılgan ekonomiler arasında yer alan Türkiye ekonomisi için 1994-2022 yılları arasında makroekonomik kırılganlık ve dış ticaret arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda öncelikle 2014 yılı FED para politikası raporunda gelişmekte olan ekonomiler için tanımlanan altı öncü göstergeye dayalı olarak Türkiye için bir makroekonomik kırılganlık endeksi hesaplanmaktadır. Makroekonomik kırılganlık endeksi ve dış ticaret arasındaki ilişki ARDL Sınır Testi yaklaşımı ve Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi ile sınanmaktadır. ARDL sınır testi bulgularına göre, makroekonomik kırılganlık endeksi ile uzun dönemde hem ihracat hem de ithalat değişkeni arasında istatistiki açıdan anlamlı bir ilişki vardır. Hata düzetme katsayısı da kısa dönemde dengeden sapmaların, 1,03 yıl sonra uzun dönem dengesine yakınsayarak yeniden dengeye geleceğini göstermektedir. Nedensellik bulguları da ARDL sonuçlarını desteklemektedir. İhracattan makroekonomik kırılganlığa doğru tek yönlü nedensellik gözlenirken; hem makroekonomik kırılganlık ve ithalat, hem de ihracat ve ithalat arasında çift yönlü nedensellik tespit edilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kaya, S., Şentürk, C. (2024). MACROECONOMIC VULNERABILITY AND TRADE: EVIDENCE FROM ARDL BOUNDS TEST AND TODA-YAMAMOTO CAUSALITY ANALYSIS. NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ, Cilt: 12 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 235–252. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1548657

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (49)

  1. Afonso, A., Gomes, P., ve Rother, P. (2009). “Ordered Response Models For Sovereign Debt Ratings.” Applied Economics Letters, 16(8), 769-773.
  2. Amiti, M. ve J. Konings (2011). “Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia,” American Economic Review, 97, 1611-1638.
  3. Bayraktar, Y. ve Elüstü, S. (2016). “Makroekonomik Kırılganlığın Ölçülmesi: Yükselen Piyasalar ve Türkiye İçin Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz.” Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 5(12), 8-29.
  4. Bissoondoyal-Bheenick, E. (2005). “An Analysis Of The Determinants Of Sovereign Ratings.” Global Finance Journal, 15(3), 251-280.
  5. Briguglio, L. (1995). “Small Island Developing States and Their Economic Vulnerabilities.” World Development, 23(9), 1615-1632.
  6. Briguglio, L. P. (2016). “Exposure To External Shocks And Economic Resilience Of Countries: Evidence From Global Indicators.” Journal of Economic Studies, 43(6), 1057-1078.
  7. Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N. ve Vella, S. (2008). “Economic Vulnerability And Resilience: Concepts And Measurements.” Oxford Development Studies, 37(3), 229-247.
  8. Büyüksarıkulak, A. M., ve Suluk, S. (2022). “The Misery Index: An Evaluation on Fragile Five Countries.” Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(3), 1108-1123.
  9. Cariolle, J. (2011). “The Economic Vulnerability Index-2010 Update.” Fondation Pour Les Études Et Recherches Sur Le Développement International (No. I09).
  10. Cavallo, E. A., ve Frankel, J. A. (2008). “Does Openness to Trade Make Countries More Vulnerable to Sudden Stops, or Less? Using Gravity to Establish Causality.” Journal of International Money and Finance, 27(8), 1430-1452.
  11. Cinel, E. A. (2018). “Türkiye Ekonomisinin Kırılgan Yapısı.” Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(23), s. 57-66.
  12. Cordina, G. (2004). “Economic Vulnerability And Economic Growth: Some Results From A Neo-Classical Growth Modelling Approach”. Journal of Economic Development, 29(2), 21-39.
  13. Crowards, T. (2004). “Macroeconomic Vulnerability Of Small Developing States: Will It Squeeze Into A Single Index?” Conceptual and Methodological Issues, 113-131.
  14. Çan, H. ve Dinçsoy, M. O. (2016). “Kırılganlık Göstergeleri Ve Kırılgan Beşli Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme.” The Journal Of Academic Social Science, 4(22), 199-217.
  15. Deltuvaitė, V. (2017). “Which Factors Are Crucial in Explaining Vulnerability of Countries to the External Macroeconomic Shocks? The Case of the Central and Eastern European Countries.” In Advances in Applied Economic Research: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Applied Economics (ICOAE) (pp. 705-717). Springer International Publishing.
  16. Domańska, A., ve Serwa, D. (2013). “Vulnerability To Foreign Macroeconomic Shocks–An Empirical Study In Cross-Industry Perspective. Example Of 2008–2009 Global Crisis In Europe. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, 13(1), 150-173.
  17. Edwards, S. (2007). “Capital Controls, Capital Flow Contractions, and Macroeconomic Vulnerability.” Journal of International Money and Finance, 26(5), 814-840.
  18. Edwards, S. (2009). “Sequencing of Reforms, Financial Globalization, and Macroeconomic Vulnerability.” Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 23(2), 131-148.
  19. Elüstü, S. (2016). “Yükselen Piyasalarda Makroekonomik Kırılganlık ve Türkiye Örneği.” TC İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İktisat Anabilim Dalı Teknoloji ve Sanayi İktisadı, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.
  20. Farrugia, N. (2009). “Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts And Indicators For Economies With A High Agricultural Import Content.”. Islands And Small States Instıtute, No: 3/2009
  21. FED. (2014). Monetary Policy Report. “Board Of Governors Of The Federal Reserve System”, https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20140211_mprfullreport.pdf, 15.05.2024. Feindouno, S. ve Goujon, M. (2016). “The Retrospective Economic Vulnerability Index, 2015 Update.” FERDI, Çalışma No: 147.
  22. Frankel, J. A., ve Saravelos, G. (2010). “Are Leading Indicators Of Financial Crises Useful For Assessing Country Vulnerability? Evidence From The 2008-09 Global Crisis (No. w16047).” National Bureau Of Economic Research.
  23. Guillaumont, P. (2008). “An Economic Vulnerability Index: Its Design And Use For International Development Policy (No. 2008/99).” WIDER Research Paper.
  24. Guillaumont, P., ve Guillaumont Jeanneney, S. (2009). “State Fragility And Economic Vulnerability: What İs Measured And Why? (No. P07).” FERDI Working Paper.
  25. Halpern, L., M. Koren ve A. Szeidl (2015). “Imported Inputs and Productivity,” American Economic Review, 105, 3660-3703.
  26. Karakurt, B., Şentürk, S. H. ve Ela, M. (2015). “Makroekonomik Kırılganlık: Türkiye ve Şangay Beşlisi Karşılaştırması.” Journal of Management and Economics Research, 13(1), 283-307
  27. Kasahara, H. Ve J. Rodrigue (2008). “Does the Use of Imported Intermediates Increase Productivity? Plant-level Evidence,” Journal of Development Economics, 87, 106-118.
  28. Krkoska, L. (2001). “Assessing Macroeconomic Vulnerability In Central Europe.” Post-Communist Economies, 13(1), 41-55.
  29. Lai, K., Wang, T., ve Xu, D. (2021). “Capital Controls And International Trade: An Industry Financial Vulnerability Perspective.” Journal of International Money and Finance, 116, 102399.
  30. Mata, J. F., ve Ziaja, S. (2009). “Users' Guide On Measuring Fragility.” German Development Institute. Minsky, H. P. (1977). “The Financial Instability Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Keynes and An Alternative To “Standard” Theory.” Challenge, 20(1), 20-27.
  31. Montalbano, P. (2011). “Trade Openness and Developing Countries’ Vulnerability: Concepts, Misconceptions, and Directions For Research.” World Development, 39(9), 1489-1502.
  32. Montalbano, P., Federici, A., Triulzi, U., ve Pietrobelli, C. (2005). “Trade Openness and Vulnerability in Central And Eastern Europe. In The Impact of Globalization on The World’s Poor: Transmission Mechanisms (pp. 204-234).” London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  33. Narayan, P. K., ve Narayan, S. (2005). “Estimating Income And Price Elasticities Of Imports For Fiji In A Cointegration Framework.” Economic Modelling, 22(3), 423-438.
  34. Naudé, W., Santos-Paulino, A., ve McGillivray, M. (2009). “Vulnerability in developing countries: Implications and conclusions.” Deakin University.
  35. Ndirangu, L., Ndung’u, N., Garcia, C., Nyamongo, E., ve Gitau, C. (2013). “Early Warning Index For Macroeconomic Vulnerability in Kenya. Kenya School for Monetary Studies (KSMS).” Working Paper No. WP/13/1.
  36. Nguyen, C. P. ve Su, T. D. (2023). “Export Qualıty and Economic Vulnerability: Insights From 88 Developıng Countries.” Journal of Economic Development, 48(4).
  37. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2020). States of Fragility Report. https://www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/states-of-fragility-report-series.htm, 15.05.2024.
  38. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001). “Bounds Testing Approaches To The Analysis Of Level Relationships.” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
  39. Pöschl, J., Vidovic, H., Wörz, J., ve Astrov, V. (2005). “Turkey: Macroeconomic Vulnerability, Competitiveness and the Labour Market (No. 2005/5).” Discussion Paper.
  40. Seth, A., ve Ragab, A. (2012). “Macroeconomic Vulnerability in Developing Countries: Approaches and Issues.” UNDP International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, Working Paper Number 94.
  41. Şeker, A. (2021). “Financial Fragility and Its Impacts on International Trade and Economic Growth: New Evidence From Fragile Five and Troubled Ten Countries. In Impact of Global Issues on International Trade (pp. 158-173).” IGI Global.
  42. Tagkalakis, A. O. (2014). “Financial Stability Indicators And Public Debt Developments.” The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 54(2), 158-179.
  43. The Balance. (2022). “What Are the Fragile Five?”. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-are-the-fragile-five-1978880. 15.05.2024.
  44. Toda, H. Y. ve Yamamoto, T. (1995). “Statistical Inference In Vector Autoregressions With Possibly Integrated Processes.” Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250.
  45. Topalova, P. ve A. Khandelwal (2011). “Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity: The Case of India.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 93, 995-1009.
  46. Wang, C. C. (2013). “Reconsidering The Economic Vulnerability İndex Of The United Nations.” Canadian Journal Of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne D'études Du Développement, 34(4), 553-568.
  47. Yeşilçiçek, T. ve Karabacak, M. (2020), “Türkiye Ekonomisinde Krizler, Ekonomik Kırılganlık ve Yapısal Reformlar.” Economics Literature, 2(2), s. 122-145.
  48. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2020). States of Fragility Report. https://www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/states-of-fragility-report-series.htm, 15.05.2024.
  49. The Balance. (2022). “What Are the Fragile Five?”. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-are-the-fragile-five-1978880. 15.05.2024.