Journals / Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONETARY POLICY AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN THE TURKISH ECONOMY AFTER THE 2000s.

TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİNDE 2000’Lİ YILLAR SONRASINDA PARA POLİTİKASI VE GELİR DAĞILIMI İLİŞKİSİ

Pages
1–23
Publication Date
2019-06-01
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)

Result of the study, the CBRT can not influence the income distribution directly through the monetary policy tool, only the interest rate policy has affected the distribution of profits between the real sector and the financial sector and there is no significant relationship between natural interest and the overnight rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey in terms of monetary policy and the power to influence income distribution due to aggregate demand

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to find out how the central bank monetary policy affects income distribution, in keeping with the Kalecki / Post Keynesian point of view and the process between income and investment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The relationship between credit, income distribution and monetary policy have been investigated in terms of Turkish economy and an answer has been sought to determine whether the interest rate policy instrument has an effect on capital accumulation and prices, therefore it has an impact on income distribution.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Result of the study, the CBRT can not influence the income distribution directly through the monetary policy tool, only the interest rate policy has affected the distribution of profits between the real sector and the financial sector and there is no significant relationship between natural interest and the overnight rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey in terms of monetary policy and the power to influence income distribution due to aggregate demand
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Post-Keynesyen · Gelir Dağılımı · TCMB Para Politikası

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find out how the central bank monetary policy affects income distribution, in keeping with the Kalecki / Post Keynesian point of view and the process between income and investment. The article brings together the Kalecki / Post Keynesian income distribution model with the bank credit system. The relationship between credit, income distribution and monetary policy have been investigated in terms of Turkish economy and an answer has been sought to determine whether the interest rate policy instrument has an effect on capital accumulation and prices, therefore it has an impact on income distribution. The average national investment rate for the quarter was 5% in 2006, while after 2010 the same rate was 10.5%, when the share of profits in the national income increased from 30% to 50%. Result of the study, the CBRT can not influence the income distribution directly through the monetary policy tool, only the interest rate policy has affected the distribution of profits between the real sector and the financial sector and there is no significant relationship between natural interest and the overnight rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey in terms of monetary policy and the power to influence income distribution due to aggregate demand

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Kalecki/Post-Keynesyen bakış açısı ile gelir ve yatırım arasındakisürece bağlı kalınarak, merkez bankası para politikasının gelir dağılımını ne yöneetkilediğini bulmaktır. Makale Kalecki/Post-Keynesyen gelir dağılımı modelini bankakredisistemi ile bir araya getirmektedir. Çalışmada kredi, gelir dağılımı ve parapolitikası arasındaki ilişki Türkiye ekonomisi açısından ampirik olarak araştırılmış vefaiz politika aracının, sermaye birikimi ve fiyatlar üzerinde bir etkisinin olup olmadığı,dolayısıyla gelir dağılımına etki edip etmediği sorusuna cevap aranmıştır. 2006 yılındayatırımların milli gelire oranı üç aylık bazda ortalama %5’lerde iken 2010 yılından sonrabu ortalama %10,5’e çıkmış, kârların milli gelirden aldığı pay da %30’lardan %50’lereyükselmiştir. TCMB’nin para politikası aracı ile doğrudan gelir dağılımına etkiedemediği, sadece faiz politikası vasıtasıyla reel sektör ile finansal sektör arasındakârların dağılımını etkilediği sonucuna ulaşılmış, para politikası ile toplam talebi vedolayısıyla gelir dağılımını etkileme gücü açısından doğal faiz ile TCMB’nin gecelik faiziarasında anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı saptanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYDUR, C. M., SÜSLÜ, B. (2019). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONETARY POLICY AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN THE TURKISH ECONOMY AFTER THE 2000s.. Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 1–23. https://ajindex.com/articles/170704

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Baldemir, E., ve Süslü, B. (2008), Firmaların Kısa Vadeli Borçlanmalarının Hisse Senedi Fiyatlarının Değişimine Etkisi: Modıgliani-Miller Teoremi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 259-268.
  2. Baydur, C. M., Suslu, B. ve Bekmez, B. (2005), Monetary Policy Analysis for Turkey in a Game Theoretical Perspective, Istanbul Stock Exchange Review, 29(8), 39-64
  3. Baydur, C.M. (2015), Keynes'e Göre Tanımlanmış Bölüşüm İlişkileri Altında Yeni Phillips Eğrisi ve Para Politikasının Sınırları, Bankacılar Dergisi, 26(93), 82-105.
  4. Cairo, I., Sims, J. (2017),
  5. Income Inequality, Financial Crises and Monetary Policy. in/conference/download.cgi?db_name=SED2017&paper_id=1433, adresinden ve (04.04,2017) erişildi. https://editorialexpress.com/cgi
  6. Casiraghi, M, Gaiotti, E., Rodano, L. ve Secchi, A. (2016), A Reverse Robin Hood”? The distributional implications of non-standard monetary policy for Italian households. Banca D’Italia Working Paper: 1077, 07. 03.2017 discussione/2016/2016- 1077/en_tema_1077.pdf adresinden erişildi. Davidson, P. (1992), Reforming the World’s Money, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 15 (2), 153–80.
  7. Dişbudak C., Süslü, B. (2007), Türkiye'de Kişisel Gelir Dağılımını Belirleyen Makroekonomik Faktörler, Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 18 (65), 1-23
  8. Duarte, P., Schnabl, G. (2017),
  9. Monetary Policy, Inequalitiy and Political Instability. CESIFO Working Paper no 6734, (Ocak, 2018) tarihinde http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6734.pdf erişildi. adresinden Dutt, A.K. (1984), “Stagnation, Income Distribution and Monopoly, Power”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8(1), 25-40.
  10. Furceri, D., Loungani, P. ve Zdziencilka, A. (2016), The Effects of Monetary Policy Shock on Inequality. IMF Working Paper WP/16/245, (Aralık 2017) https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16245.pdf adresinden erişildi. Halevi J., Peter K. (2016),
  11. Kalecki, Classical Economics and the Surplus Approach, Post-Keynesian Essays From Down Under Volume I: Essays On Keynes, ed. Joseph Halevi, G. C. Harcourt, Peter Kriesler, J. W. Nevile içinde Harrod And Kalecki Theory And Policy In An Historical Context,, USA: Palgrave Macmillan Hein, E. (2018), Inequality and growth: Marxian and post-Keynesian/ Kaleckian perspectives on distribution and growth regimes before and after the Great Recession. Working Paper, Institute for International Political Economy, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/175322/1/1013865596.pdf adresinden erişildi. 96/2018, (16.03.2018) t