SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2021 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 50

Validity of J-Curve for Turkey and Its Main External Trade Partners: An Application of a Panel Data Approach

Türkiye ve Ana Ticaret Partnerleri için J Eğrisinin Geçerliliğinin Analizi: Panel Veri Yaklaşımı Uygulaması

Mehmet Çağrı GÖZEN
Fikriye Ceren BOSTANCI
Pages
149–168
Publication Date
2021-10-31
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)

Test results analysing the short-run indicate that the whole panel is statistically insignificant.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:External trade cannot create the expected result for some countries due to their economic structures or policies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Turkey’s persistent current account deficit is one of the most significant macroeconomic problems.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Test results analysing the short-run indicate that the whole panel is statistically insignificant.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:J Eğrisi · Dış Ticaret Açığı · Westerlund Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi

Abstract

External trade cannot create the expected result for some countries due to their economic structures or policies. Economies could encounter severe foreign trade deficits and the risk of an economic crisis. Thus, researchers and policymakers analyse the dynamics of countries’ external trade balances. Turkey’s persistent current account deficit is one of the most significant macroeconomic problems. Turkey depreciated the Turkish Lira against foreign currencies to reduce its foreign trade deficit in the past. Using panel data analysis, the current study tests the J-curve for Turkey and its six main foreign trade partner countries - Russia, USA, Germany, UK, Italy, and China. Results do not support the validity of the J-curve hypothesis in the long run. Test results analysing the short-run indicate that the whole panel is statistically insignificant.

Özet

Dış ticaret ekonomik yapılarından veya uyguladıkları ekonomi politikalarından dolayı bazı ülkeler için arzu edilen sonuçlar doğurmaz ve ülkeler bundan dolayı önemli dış ticaret açıkları veya ekonomik krizlerle yüz yüze gelebilir. Bu yüzden araştırmacılar ve politika yapıcılar ülkelerin dış ticaret dengelerinin dinamiklerini analiz ederler. Türkiye’nin kronik cari işlemler açığı en önemli makroekonomik sorunlarından biridir ve geçmişte Türkiye parasının değerini düşürerek dış ticaret açığını azaltmaya çalışmıştır. Bu çalışmada Türkiye ve onun 6 ana dış ticaret partneri için - Rusya, ABD, Almanya, Birleşik Krallık, İtalya ve Çin- J eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği sınanmıştır. Kısa dönemi analiz eden test sonuçlarına göre bütün panel istatistiksel olarak anlamsız çıkmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖZEN, M. Ç., BOSTANCI, F. C. (2021). Validity of J-Curve for Turkey and Its Main External Trade Partners: An Application of a Panel Data Approach. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 50, 149–168. https://ajindex.com/articles/397916

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Akbostanci, E. (2004), “Dynamics of The Trade Balance the Turkish J-curve”, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 40(5), 57-73.
  2. Akkaya, O. (2018), “Türkiye ve Türkiye’nin Dış Ticaret Partnerleri Arasındaki İki Yanlı J eğrisi: 1996-2006 Dönemi İncelemesi”, Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi (FESA), 3(1), 328-338.
  3. Ali, S.Z. & S. Anwar (2018), “Anticipated versus Unanticipated Terms of Trade Shocks and the J-Curve Phenomenon”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 81, 1-19.
  4. Backus, D.K. & P.J. Kehoe & F.E. Kydland (1994), “Dynamics of Trade Balance and the Terms of Trade: the J-Curve?”, American Economic Review, 84(1), 84-103.
  5. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. & A.M. Kutan (2009), “The J-curve in the Emerging Economies of Eastern Europe”, Applied Economics, 41(20), 2523-2532.
  6. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. & H. Fariditavana (2015), “Nonlinear ARDL Approach, Asymmetric Effects and the J-curve”, Journal of Economic Studies, 42(3), 9-530.
  7. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. & H. Fariditavana (2016), “Nonlinear ARDL Approach and the J-curve Phenomenon”, Open Economies Review, 27(1), 51-70.
  8. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. & H. Masoomeh (2012), “German-US Commodity Trade: Is There a J-curve Effect?”, Applied Economics Quarterly, 58(4), 327-353.
  9. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. & N. Bose & Y. Zhang (2018), “Asymmetric Cointegration, Nonlinear ARDL, and the J-curve: a Bilateral Analysis of China and its 21 Trading Partners”, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 54(13), 3131-3151.
  10. Bai, J. (2009), “Panel Data Models with Interactive Fixed Effects”, Econometrica, 77(4), 1229-1279.
  11. Bal, H. & M. Demiral (2012), “Reel Döviz Kuru ve Ticaret Dengesi: Türkiye’nin Almanya ile Ticareti Örneği (2002.01-2012.09)”, Ç.Ü. İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 16(2),45-64.
  12. Brada, J.C. & A.M. Kutan & S. Zhou (1997), “The Exchange Rate and the Balance of Trade: The Turkish Experience”, The Journal of Development Studies, 33(5), 675-692.
  13. Breitung, J. & S. Das (2005), “Panel Unit Root Tests Under Cross-Sectional Dependence”, Statistica Neerlandica, 59(4), 414-433.
  14. Breusch, T.S. & A.R. Pagan (1980), “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics”, The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
  15. Chudik, A. & M.H. Pesaran (2015), “Common Correlated Effects Estimation of Heterogeneous Dynamic Panel Data Models with Weakly Exogenous Regressors”, Journal of Econometrics, 188(2), 393-420.
  16. Demirden, T. & I. Pastine (1995), “Flexible Exchange Rates and the J-curve: An Alternative Approach”, Economics Letters, 48, 373-377. Di