SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 588

The paradox of ımmiserizing growth: the simultaneous equation system for turkish economy

Yoksullaştıran büyüme paradoksu: Türkiye ekonomisi için eşanlı denklem sistemi

MERTER AKINCI
ÖMER YILMAZ
Pages
21–43
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)

Although the results of the simultaneous equation system supporting the causality findings points out the validity of immiserizing growth hypothesis in agricultural sector, it implies that the paradox does not occur in the industrial sector.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the validity of immiserizing growth hypothesis within the context of agricultural and industrial sectors by using simultaneous equation systems in Turkish economy in the period 2003:Q1-2012:Q3.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The results of the multiple Johansen – Juselius cointegration analysis show the existence of the long – run relationship among the variables used in the model for both of the sectors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although the results of the simultaneous equation system supporting the causality findings points out the validity of immiserizing growth hypothesis in agricultural sector, it implies that the paradox does not occur in the industrial sector.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study examines the validity of immiserizing growth hypothesis within the context of agricultural and industrial sectors by using simultaneous equation systems in Turkish economy in the period 2003:Q1-2012:Q3. The results of the multiple Johansen – Juselius cointegration analysis show the existence of the long – run relationship among the variables used in the model for both of the sectors. Besides, the findings of Granger causality analysis indicate the tendencies toward the immiserizing growth in the agricultural sector, but the same results cannot be obtained in the industrial sector. Although the results of the simultaneous equation system supporting the causality findings points out the validity of immiserizing growth hypothesis in agricultural sector, it implies that the paradox does not occur in the industrial sector.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye ekonomisi 2003:Q1-2012:Q3 döneminde tarım ve sanayi sektörleri kapsamında yoksullaştıran büyüme hipotezinin geçerliliğini eşanlı denklem sistemlerini kullanarak incelemektedir. Çoklu ilişkileri dikkate alan Jo- 1 hansen – Juselius eşbütünleşme analizi, her iki sektör için de modelde kullanılan değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli ilişkilerin varlığını göstermiştir. Bunun yanı sıra, Granger nedensellik analizi bulguları tarım sektöründe yoksullaştıran büyüme doğrultusunda eğilimlerin olduğunu göstermiş, ancak benzer sonuçlar sanayi sektörü için elde edilememiştir. Nedensellik bulgularını destekleyen eşanlı denklem sistemi sonuçları tarım sektöründe yoksullaştıran büyüme hipotezinin geçerliliğini işaret etmesine karşın, paradoksun sanayi sektöründe ortaya çıkmadığını göstermiştir

🔖

Cite This Article

AKINCI, M., YILMAZ, Ö. (2014). The paradox of ımmiserizing growth: the simultaneous equation system for turkish economy. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi, Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 588, 21–43. https://ajindex.com/articles/209757

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. ALSTON, Julian M. and Will J. MARTIN; (1995), “Reversal of Fortune: Immiserizing Technical Change in Agriculture”, Ameri- can Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(2), pp. 251-259.
  2. ATEŞ, İsmet ve Aziz BOSTAN; (2007), “Türkiye’de Dış Ticare- tin Serbestleşmesi ve Yoksullaştıran Büyüme (1989-2004)”, Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18, ss. 1-10.
  3. BALASSA, Bela; (1967), “Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the European Common Market”, The Economic Journal, 77(305), pp. 1-21.
  4. BARRETT, Christopher B.; (1998), “Immiserized Growth in Lib- eralized Agriculture”, World Development, 26(5), pp. 743-753.
  5. BELADI, Hamid and Sugata MARJIT; (1992), “Foreign Capi- tal and Protectionism”, The Canadian Journal of Economics, 25(1), pp. 233-238.
  6. BHAGWATI, Jagdish; (1958), “Immiserizing Growth: A Geo- metrical Note”, The Review of Economic Studies, 25(3), pp. 201-205.
  7. BORBELY, Dora and Christopher SCHUMANN; (2006), “Hu- man Capital and Growth: A Panel Analysis for the EU-15, Se- lected Accession Countries and Russia”, BROADMAN, Harry G., Tiiu PAAS and Paul J. J. WELFENS (eds.), Economic Lib- eralization and Integration Policy: Options for Eastern Europe and Russia, Springer, Germany, pp. 277-298.
  8. BRECHER, Richard A. and Carlos F. D. ALEJANDRO; (1977), “Tariffs, Foreign Capital and Immiserizing Growth”, Journal of International Economics, 7(4), pp. 317-322.
  9. BROUWER, Gordon and James GILBERT; (2005), “Monetary Policy Reaction Functions in Australia”, Economic Record, 81(253), pp. 124-134.
  10. CHANG, Gene H.; (1991), “Immiserizing Growth in Centrally Planned Economies”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 15(4), pp. 711-717.
  11. CHAO, Chi C. and Eden S. H. YU; (1991), “Immiserizing Growth for a Quota-Distorted Small Economy Under Variable Returns to Scale”, The Canadian Journal of Economics, 24(3), pp. 686-692.
  12. CHAREMZA, Wojciech W. and Derek F. DEADMAN; (1993), New Directions in Econometric Practice, Edward Elgar Pub- lishing, UK. CHOI, E. Kwan; (2001), “Neighbour – Immiserizing Growth: The Asian Crisis”, The Japanese Economic Review, 52(4), pp. COLLIE, David R.; (2009), “Immiserizing Growth and the Met- zler Paradox in the Ricardian Model”, Cardiff Business School Working Paper, E2009/11, pp. 1-15.
  13. COURT, R. H.; (1974), “Three Stage Least Squares and Some Extensions Where the Structural Disturbance Covariance Ma- trix May Be Singular”, Econometrica, 42(3), pp. 547-558.
  14. DEI, Fumio; (1985), “Welfare Gains from Capital Inflows Under Import Quotas”, Economics Letters, 18