SavedAdd your journal

Journals / MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 20

THE GIBSON PARADOX: THE CASE OF TURKEY

GIBSON ÇELİŞKİSİNİN TÜRKİYE VERİLERİ İLE ANALİZİ

Muammer ŞİMŞEK
Cem KADILAR
Pages
115–127
Publication Date
2008-10-01
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)

Results support the Gibson’s findings in Turkey, as well

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the Gibson paradox, which is the strong positive correlation between the price level measured by a log price index and the long-term nominal interest rate measured by the yield to maturity of long-term bonds, has been tested using Turkish quarterly data over the 1987 I - 2004 IV periods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Here, ARDL bounds testing approach to cointegration developed by Pesaran et al. 2001 in applied econometrics is used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results support the Gibson’s findings in Turkey, as well
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Nominal faiz oranı · fiyat düzeyi · Gibson çelişkisi

Abstract

In this study, the Gibson paradox, which is the strong positive correlation between the price level measured by a log price index and the long-term nominal interest rate measured by the yield to maturity of long-term bonds, has been tested using Turkish quarterly data over the 1987 I - 2004 IV periods. Here, ARDL bounds testing approach to cointegration developed by Pesaran et al. 2001 in applied econometrics is used. Results support the Gibson’s findings in Turkey, as well

Özet

Bu çalışmada, uzun dönem faiz oranları iç borçlanma faiz oranları ile fiyat düzeyi logaritmik arasında güçlü pozitif ilişkinin bulunduğunu ifade eden Gibson çelişkisi, Türkiye Ekonomisi’nin 1987 I -2004 IV dönemine ilişkin mevsimsel verileri kullanarak test edilmektedir. Çalışmada, uygulamalı ekonometride Pesaran vd. 2001 tarafından yeni geliştirilen eşbütünleşmeye ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı kullanılmaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, Gibson’nın bulgularını desteklemektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞİMŞEK, M., KADILAR, C. (2008). THE GIBSON PARADOX: THE CASE OF TURKEY. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 20, 115–127. https://ajindex.com/articles/3459

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Atkins, F. ve Serletis, A. (2003). “Bound Tests of the Gibson Paradox and the Fisher Effect: Evidence from Low-Frequency International Data”, The Manchester School, (6), 673-679.
  2. 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, July, 535-542.
  3. Barsky, R.B. ve Summers, L.H. (1985), “Gibson’s Paradox and the Gold Standard” NBER Working Paper, No.1680 1-48. http://www.nber.org/papers/w.1680
  4. Bewley, R.A. (1979), “The Direct Estimation of the Equilibrium Response in at Linear Dynamic Model”, Economics Letters, 3, 357-361.
  5. Cochran, J. (1997), “Replicating Gibson: Or, A Pair of Dummies Does not Beat a Paradox”, 1-21. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/working/Pages/9910.html
  6. Coulombe, S. (1998), “A Non-Paradoxial Interpretation of the Gibson Paradox”, Bank of Canada, Working Papers, 98-22, 1-47. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/working.papers/1998/wp98-22.pdf
  7. Corbae, D. ve Oualiris, S. (1989), “A Random Walk Through the Gibson Paradox” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 4, 1-47.
  8. Engle, Robert F. ve Granger, C.V.J. (1987), “Cointegration and Error Correction Representation, Estimation, and Testing”,Econometrica, 55, 251-276.
  9. Halicioglu, F. (2004). “The Gibson Paradox: An Empirical Investigation for Turkey” European Research Studies Journal, 27(1-2), 111-119.
  10. Granger, C.W.J. (1969), “Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods”, Econometrica, 37, 424-38.
  11. Granger, C.W.J. (1986), “Developments in the Study of Co-Integrated Economic Variables”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 48(3), 213-228.
  12. Harris, R. (1995). Using Cointegration Analysis in Econometric Modelling, Prentice Hall, London, New York. Johansen, S. (1988), “Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(1), 231-54.
  13. Johansen, S. ve Juselius, K. (1990). “Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration with Application to the Demand for Money”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 69-206.
  14. Jones, J. D. ve Joulfaian, D. (1991). “Federal Government Expenditures and Revenues in the Early Years of the American Republic: Evidence From 1792 to 1860”, Journal of Macroeconomics, 13(1), 133-55.
  15. Klein, L.R. (1995), “An Economic Interpretation of the Gibson Relationship”, Atlantic Economic Journal, 23, 159-76.
  16. Kremers, J.M., Ericsson, N. R. ve Dolado, J. (1992) “The