Journals / Journal of Yasar University / 2021 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 62

The Relationship of Public Health Expenditures and Capital Accumulation in Developed Countries: Panel Cointegration Analysis

Gelişmiş Ülkelerde Kamusal Sağlık Harcamaları ve Sermaye Birikimi İlişkisi: Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi

Pages
982–1004
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 short-term causality analysis using the VECM method, bidirectional causality has been detected among variables in both the short term and the long term.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the 2000s, expenditures made in the health sector around the world grew proportionally faster than economic growth.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In order to determine the effects on economic growth for the period 2000-2017, the six countries with the “most developed” economies (USA, UK, France, Japan, Canada, Russia), Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Government Health Expenditures (KSH), Transfer Health Expenditures (TSH) and Gross Domestic Price Index (PI) the long-term relationship between variables has been investigated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the short-term causality analysis using the VECM method, bidirectional causality has been detected among variables in both the short term and the long term.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000-2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In the 2000s, expenditures made in the health sector around the world grew proportionally faster than economic growth. A similar trend is observed when countries are analyzed by high, middle and low income groups. In order to determine the effects on economic growth for the period 2000-2017, the six countries with the “most developed” economies (USA, UK, France, Japan, Canada, Russia), Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Government Health Expenditures (KSH), Transfer Health Expenditures (TSH) and Gross Domestic Price Index (PI) the long-term relationship between variables has been investigated. For this purpose, Pedroni, Kao and Johansen Fisher cointegration tests, Pedroni FMOLS, Pedroni DOLS, Panel VECM andPanel Causality methods were used. Cointegration tests show that variables have long-term cointegration relationship. According to the panel FMOLS and DOLS test results, the results of KSH, TSH and FI coefficient were significant throughout the panel. According to the results of the short-term causality analysis using the VECM method, bidirectional causality has been detected among variables in both the short term and the long term.

Özet

2000’li yıllarda dünya genelinde sağlık sektöründe yapılan harcamalar oransal olarak, ekonomik büyümeden çok daha hızlı büyümüştür. Ülkeler yüksek, orta ve düşük gelir gruplarına göre incelendiğinde debenzerbireğilim görülmektedir. 2000-2017 dönemiekonomik büyümeüzerindeki etkilerinin belirlenmesi için “en gelişmiş” ekonomilere sahip altı ülkenin(ABD, UK, Fransa, Japonya, Kanada, Rusya)Kişi Başına Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Hasıla (KBGSYH),Kamusal Sağlık Harcamaları (KSH), Transfer Sağlık Harcamaları(TSH) ve Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Fiyat İndeksi(Fİ) değişkenleri arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişki araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla Pedroni, Kao ve Johansen Fisher eşbütünleşme testleri, Pedroni FMOLS, Pedroni DOLS, Panel VECM ve Panel Nedensellik yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Eşbütünleşme testleri, değişkenlerin uzun dönemde eşbütünleşme ilişkisine sahip olduğu göstermektedir. Panel FMOLS ve DOLS test sonuçlarına göre panel genelinde KSH, TSH ve FI katsayı sonuçları anlamlı çıkmıştır. VECM yöntemi kullanılarak yapılan kısa dönem nedensellik analizi sonuçlarına göre, değişkenler arasında hem kısa dönemde hem de uzun dönemde çift yönlü nedensellik tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YİLDİRİM, Z., CEBECİ, A. (2021). The Relationship of Public Health Expenditures and Capital Accumulation in Developed Countries: Panel Cointegration Analysis. Journal of Yasar University, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 62, 982–1004. https://ajindex.com/articles/219077

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Afşar, Ö. A. ve Atgür, M. 2019. “Demokratikleşme Düzeyi ve Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişme İlişkisi: OECD Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme”. Turkish Studies Social Sciences. Vol. 14. Issue 4. ss. 1201-1222. https://turkishstudies.net/social-sciences?mod=makale_tr_ozet&makale_id=24883.
  2. Aghion, P., Howitt, P. ve Murtin, F. 2010. “The Relationship Between Health and Growth: When Lucas Meets Nelson-Phelps”. Bruegel Working Paper 2010/04. ss. 1-25. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/aghion/files/Relationship%20Between%20Health.pdf. (erişim 20.12.2020).
  3. Ağır, H. ve Tıraş, H. H. 2018. “Türkiye‟de Sağlık Harcama Türleri‟nin Değerlendirilmesi”, KSÜSBD Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. Cilt 15. Sayı 2. ss:643-670.
  4. Ak, R. (2012). “The Relationship Between Health Expenditures and Economic Growth: Turkish Case”. Int.j.Buss.Mgt.Eco.Res.Vol.3(1).ss.404-409. http://www.ijbmer.com/docs/volumes/vol3issue1/ijbmer2012030101.pdf (erişim 20.12.2020).
  5. Alhowaish, A. K. 2014. “Healthcare Spending and Economic Growth in Saudi Arabia: A Hranger Causality Approach”. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research. Vol 5. Issue 1. ss. 1471-1474. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.428.9040&rep=rep1&type=pdf (erişim 20.12.2020).
  6. Amponsah-Nketiah, E. 2009. “Public Spending and Economic Growth: Evidence From Ghana (1970-2004)”. Development Southern Africa. Vol. 26. Issue 3. ss. 477-497. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03768350903086846 (erişim 20.12.02020).
  7. Asteriou, D. ve Hall, S. G. 2007. “Applied Econometrics”. (Rev.ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. ve Alse, J. 1993. “Export Growth and Economic Growth: An Application of Cointegration and Error-Correction Modelling”. The Journal of Developing Areas. 27. ss: 535-542.
  8. Baltagi, B. H. ve Kao, C. 2000. “Nonstationary Panels, Cointegration in Panels and Dynemic Panels: A Survey”. ss.1-64. http://tyigit.bilkent.edu.tr/gradmetr/survey.pdf
  9. Bhargava, A., Jamison, D. T., Lau, L. ve Murray, C. JL. 2001. “Modeling The Effects Of Health On Economic Growth”. Journal of Health Economics. 20 (3). 423-440. https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper33.pdf. (erişim 20.12.2020).
  10. Bloom, D. E., Canning, D. ve Sevilla, J. 2004. “The Effect Of Health On Economic Growth: A Production Function Approach”. World Development. 32 (1). 1-13. https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0305750X03001943?token= (erişim 20.12.2020).
  11. Blomqvist, A.G. ve Carter, R.A.L. 1997. “Is Health Care