SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İzmir İktisat Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1

The Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis: Turkey and Foreign Trade Partners Application

Balassa-Samuelson Hipotezi: Türkiye ve Dış Ticaret Ortakları Uygulaması

İsmail KÜÇÜKAKSOY
İsmail ÇİFÇİ
Pages
57–94
Publication Date
2017-07-13
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 FMOLS and DOLS methods a 1 unit increase in the relative productivity index increases the real effective exchange rate index approximately 0.96 unit in the long-run.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper aims to investigate validity of “Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis (BSH)” for Turkey and ten member countries of the European Union and NAFTA countries which Turkey’s major trading partners using annual data in period from 1991 to 2013.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To investigate the validity of the BSH in the line with established model, according to Pedroni Panel Cointegration and Kao Panel Cointegration test, long-run cointegrating relationship between variables (the real effective exchange rate index and relative productivity index) has determined.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to FMOLS and DOLS methods a 1 unit increase in the relative productivity index increases the real effective exchange rate index approximately 0.96 unit in the long-run.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Balassa-Samuelson Hipotezi · Reel Döviz Kuru · Dış Ticarete Konu Olan ve Olmayan Sektör Verimlilikleri

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate validity of “Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis (BSH)” for Turkey and ten member countries of the European Union and NAFTA countries which Turkey’s major trading partners using annual data in period from 1991 to 2013. To investigate the validity of the BSH in the line with established model, according to Pedroni Panel Cointegration and Kao Panel Cointegration test, long-run cointegrating relationship between variables (the real effective exchange rate index and relative productivity index) has determined. Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS) and Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares (DOLS) methods prove BSH in both terms of panels and for all countries at 1% significance level. According to FMOLS and DOLS methods a 1 unit increase in the relative productivity index increases the real effective exchange rate index approximately 0.96 unit in the long-run.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye ve en büyük ticaret ortağı olan on Avrupa Birliği Ülkesi ve NAFTA ülkeleri için 1991-2013 yıllık verileri kullanarak “Balassa-Samuelson Hipotezi (BSH)”nin geçerliliğini test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. BSH’nin geçerliliğini araştırmak için kurulan model doğrultusunda, değişkenler (reel efektif döviz kuru endeksi, göreceli verimlilik endeksi) arasında, “Pedroni Panel Koentegrasyon” ve “Kao Panel Koentegrasyon” test sonuçlarına göre, uzun dönemli koentegre ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Tam Düzeltilmiş En Küçük Kareler (FMOLS) ve Dinamik En Küçük Kareler (DOLS) yöntemleri BSH’nin geçerliliğini hem panel bazında hem de tüm ülkeler için %1 önem seviyesinde ispatlamaktadır. FMOLS ve DOLS yöntemlerine göre göreceli verimlilik endeksinde meydana gelen 1 birimlik bir artış, uzun dönemde, reel efektif döviz kurunda yaklaşık 0.96 birimlik bir artış meydana getirmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÜÇÜKAKSOY, İ., ÇİFÇİ, İ. (2017). The Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis: Turkey and Foreign Trade Partners Application. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1, 57–94. https://ajindex.com/articles/29968

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. ALEXIUS, A. and NILSSON, J. (2000), “Real Exchange Rates and Fundamentals: Evidence From 15 OECD Countries”, Open Economies Review, Vol. 11: 4, pp. 383-397.
  2. ALPER, A. M. and CIVCIR, İ. (2012), “Can Overvaluation Prelude to Crisis and Harm Growth In Turkey”, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 34: 1, pp. 112-131.
  3. ALTUNÖZ, U. (2014), “Balassa Samuelson Hipotezi: Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı”, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, Cilt: 4: 1, ss.107-122.
  4. APERGIS, N. (2013), “The Domestic Balassa–Samuelson Effect of Inflation for the Greek Economy”, Applied Economics, Vol. 45: 23, pp. 3288-3294.
  5. ASEA, P. K. and MENDOZA, E. G. (1994), “The Balassa‐Samuelson Model: A General‐Equilibrium Appraisal”, Review of International Economics, Vol. 2: 3, pp. 244-267.
  6. AY, A. ve ÜÇGÖZ, S. (2008), “Balassa-Samuelson Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, cilt: 5: 2, ss. 1-13.
  7. BAHMANI-OSKOOEE, M. and GELAN, A. (2006), “Black Market Exchange Rate and the Productivity Bias Hypothesis”, Economics Letters, Vol. 91: 2, pp. 243-249. BAHMANI‐OSKOOEE, M. and NASIR, A. (2001), “Panel Data and Productivity Bias Hypothesis”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 49: 2, pp. 395-402.
  8. BAHMANI-OSKOOEE, M. and NIROOMAND, F. (1996), “A Reexamination of Balassa's Productivity Bias Hypothesis”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 45: 1, pp.195-204.
  9. BALASSA, B. (1964), “The Purchasing-Power Parity Doctrine: A Reappraisal”, The Journal of Political Economy, pp. 584-596.
  10. BALASSA, B. (1973), “Just How Misleading are Official Exchange Rate Conversions? A Comment”, The Economic Journal, pp. 1258-1267.
  11. BALTAGI, B. H., (2014),
  12. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, John Wiley& Sons Ltd., Fifth Edition,
  13. Chichester. BAYRAM, T. (2007), “Balassa-Samuelson Model Revisited: Growth Productivity Effect and Capital Accumulation”, International Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 1: 1, pp. 29-44.
  14. BERGIN, P. R., GLICK, R. and TAYLOR, A. M. (2004), “Productivity, Tradability, and the Long-Run Price Puzzle”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No: 10569. BHAGWATI, J. N. (1984), “Why are Services Cheaper in the Poor Countries?” The Economic Journal, pp. 279-286.
  15. BREITUNG J. (2001), “The Local Power Of Some Unit Root Tests For Panel Data”, Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 15, pp. 161-177.
  16. BULUT, E. (2005), “Döviz Kuru Belirleme Modelleri ve Döviz Piyasasının Türkiye Yapısı: Türkiye Örneği”, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tez