SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Öneri Dergisi / 2005 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 23

THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETVVEEN FOREIGN DIRECT INYESTMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTHIN TURKEY: COINTEGRATION AND ERROR-CORRECTION MODELS

THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETVVEEN FOREIGN DIRECT INYESTMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTHIN TURKEY: COINTEGRATION AND ERROR-CORRECTION MODELSÜRKİYE’DE YABANCI DOĞRUDAN YATIRIM VE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME ARASINDAKİ NEDENSEL İLİŞKİ: KOENTEGRESYON VE HATA DÜZELTME MODELLERİ

İhsan GÜNAYDIN
Pages
239–247
Publication Date
2005-01-10
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)

Engle-Graııger bivariate cointegration test results indicate these two variables are cointegrated.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper examiııes the causal relationships betweeıı foreign direct investment (FDI) and economic growth using Turkish annual data for the period 1976-2002, by means of coiııtegration and error-correction models.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Engle-Graııger bivariate cointegration test results indicate these two variables are cointegrated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The diagnostic tests for adequacy of the model also performed and passed.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Foreign Direct investment · Economic Growth · Turkey

Abstract

This paper examiııes the causal relationships betweeıı foreign direct investment (FDI) and economic growth using Turkish annual data for the period 1976-2002, by means of coiııtegration and error-correction models. The (Augmented) Dickey-Fuller (A) DF and Phillips- Perron (PP) unit root tests are performed and all-time series become stationary after first differencing. Since all time series data are stationary in the first difference, cointegration tests are necessary. Engle-Graııger bivariate cointegration test results indicate these two variables are cointegrated. The results from Granger causality tests based on error-correction models slıow that there exists bidirectional Granger causality between FDI and economic growth, supporting the feedback hypothesis for Turkey. The diagnostic tests for adequacy of the model also performed and passed.

Özet

This paper examiııes the causal relationships betweeıı foreign direct investment (FDI) and economic growth using Turkish annual data for the period 1976-2002, by means of coiııtegration and error-correction models. The (Augmented) Dickey-Fuller (A) DF and Phillips- Perron (PP) unit root tests are performed and all-time series become stationary after first differencing. Since all time series data are stationary in the first difference, cointegration tests are necessary. Engle-Graııger bivariate cointegration test results indicate these two variables are cointegrated. The results from Granger causality tests based on error-correction models slıow that there exists bidirectional Granger causality between FDI and economic growth, supporting the feedback hypothesis for Turkey. The diagnostic tests for adequacy of the model also performed and passed.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNAYDIN, İ. (2005). THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETVVEEN FOREIGN DIRECT INYESTMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTHIN TURKEY: COINTEGRATION AND ERROR-CORRECTION MODELS. Öneri Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 23, 239–247. https://ajindex.com/articles/36077

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Cheng, L.K., & Kvvan, Y.K. (2000). The location of foreign direct investment in Chinese regions, further analysis of labor quality. The Role of foreign direct investment in East Asian economic developmeııt, NBER, pp.213-238
  2. Mallampally, P.,& Sauvant, K.P. (1999). Foreign direct investment in developing countries. Finance &Development, 36(1), pp.35-37
  3. Witherell, W. (2002). OECD Global forum on international investment. New Horizons For Foreign Direct Investment, OECD, pp.4-6
  4. De Mello, L.R.Jr. (1997). Foreign direct investment in developing countries and growth: a selective survey. Journal of Developmeııt Studies, 34, pp. 1 -34
  5. Asiedu, E. (2002). On the determinants of foreign direct investment to developing countries: is Africa different? World Developmeııt, 30(1), pp.107-119
  6. Chakraborty, C., & Basu, P. (2002). Foreign direct investment and growth in India: a cointegration approach. Applied Economics, 34, pp. 1061-1073
  7. Sun, Q., Tong, W., & Yu, Q. (2002). Determinants of foreign direct investment across China. Journal of International Money and Finance, 21, pp.79-113
  8. Tseng, W., & Zebregs, H. (2002). Foreign direct investment in China: Some lessons for other countries. IMF Policy Discussion Paper, IMF, pp. 1 -25
  9. Zhang, K.H. (2000). Why is U.S. direct investment in China so small? Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(1), pp.82-94
  10. Gastanaga, V.M., Nugent, J.B., & Pashamova, B. (1998). Hoşt country Reforms and FDI inflows: How much difference do they make? Woıid Development, 26(7), pp.1299-1314
  11. OECD. (2002). New Horizons for foreign direct investment
  12. World Investment Report. (2001). World investment report 2001: Promoting linkages, Overview
  13. World Investment Report. (2002). Transnational Corporations and Export Conıpetitiveness, Overview
  14. Fabry, N., & Zeghni, S. (2002). Foreign direct investment in Russia: how the investment climate matters. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 35, pp.289-303
  15. Urata, S., & Kawai, H. (2000). Intrafırm technology transfer by Japanese manufacturing fırms in Asia. The Role of Foreign Direct Investment in East Asian Economic Development, Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, pp.49-74
  16. Zhang, K.H. (2001). Does foreign direct investment promote economic growth? Evidence from East Asia and Latin America. Contemporary Economic Policy, 19(2), pp.175-185
  17. Kravis, I., & Lipsey, R. (1982). The location of overseas production and production for export