SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 1

Macroeconomic Performance of Turkey in the 2006-2017 Period: The Magic Squares Approach

Türkiye’nin 2006-2017 Dönemi Makroekonomik Performansı: Sihirli Kare Yaklaşımı

İbrahim AL
Ezgi BADAY YILDIZ
Pages
303–320
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

Also, the 2008 Global Economic Crisis deeply affected the Turkey’s economy and the performance decreased 53,57 percent annually.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The changes and developments in the basic economic indicators of a country are important for economic decisions that policy makers and economic decision-making groups will make.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to evaluate the macroeconomic performance of Turkey’s economy in the 2006-2017 periods and to investigate the effects of the 2008 Global Economic Crisis on the economy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, the 2008 Global Economic Crisis deeply affected the Turkey’s economy and the performance decreased 53,57 percent annually.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006-2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The changes and developments in the basic economic indicators of a country are important for economic decisions that policy makers and economic decision-making groups will make. The aim of this study is to evaluate the macroeconomic performance of Turkey’s economy in the 2006-2017 periods and to investigate the effects of the 2008 Global Economic Crisis on the economy. In the study, the Magic Square Approach based on the views of Kaldorian was adopted. For this reason, an annual economic welfare index was created with the economic values that related to growth, unemployment, inflation current account balance from this data. The macroeconomic performance of Turkey's was assessed with the help of this index value. According to the findings, the best year is 2012 and the worst is 2009 in macroeconomic performance of Turkey's economy. Also, the 2008 Global Economic Crisis deeply affected the Turkey’s economy and the performance decreased 53,57 percent annually.

Özet

Bir ülkenin temel ekonomik göstergelerindeki değişimler ve gelişimler, hem politikayapıcılarının hem de iktisadi karar gruplarının verecekleri iktisadi kararlar açısından önemlidir. Buçalışmanın amacı, Türkiye ekonomisinin 2006-2017 dönemindeki makroekonomik performansınıdeğerlendirmek ve 2008 Küresel Ekonomik Krizinin Türkiye ekonomisi üzerindeki etkisiniaraştırmaktır. Çalışmada, Kaldoryan görüşe dayanan sihirli kare yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Buamaç doğrultusunda, büyüme, işsizlik, enflasyon ve cari dengeye ilişkin verilerle Türkiye’nin yıllıkekonomik refah endeksleri oluşturulmuş ve bu endeks değerleri yardımıyla Türkiye ekonomisininmakroekonomik performansı değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgulara göre, Türkiye ekonomisinin en iyiperformans gösterdiği yıl 2012, en kötü performans gösterdiği yıl ise 2009’dur. Ayrıca KüreselKrizin ekonomiyi derinden etkilediği ve Türkiye’nin göstermiş olduğu performansı yıllık yüzde 53,57 düşürdüğü hesaplanmıştır

🔖

Cite This Article

AL, İ., YILDIZ, E. B. (2022). Macroeconomic Performance of Turkey in the 2006-2017 Period: The Magic Squares Approach. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 1, 303–320. https://ajindex.com/articles/453394

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Aiginger, K. (2011). “Why Performance Differed Across Countries in the Recent Crisis: How Country Performance in the Recent Crisis Depended on Pre-crisis Conditions”, WIFO Working Papers, 387: 1-23.
  2. Al, İ. (2018). “Küresel Ekonomik Krizin Gürcistan Ekonomisine Etkisi”, Yerelden Globale Stratejik Araştırmalar III içinde 65-75. (Editörler: Silvius Stancıu, Ali Rıza Gökbunar, Turan Gündüz, Ijopec Publication, London. Barro, R. J. (1999). “Reagan vs. Clinton: Who’s the Economic Champ?” Business Week, February 22. Benlialper, A., Cömert, H. ve Düzçay, G. (2015). “2002 Sonrası Türkiye Ekonomisinin Performansı: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz”, ERC Working Papers in Economics, 15/04 May/2015: 1-45.
  3. Bernard, M., Drouet, M. Echaudemaison, C. ve Pinet, N. (1988). Economie et Societé Fraçaise, Editions Nathan. Paris, France. Bolotov, I., Cazka, R. ve Gajduskova, K. (2013). “The Economic Balance of the Czech Republic and Slovakia During the Economic Crisis”, Prag Economic Papers, 4: 504-523.
  4. Calmfors, L. ve Driffill, J (1988). “Bargaining Structure, Corporatism and Macroeconomic Performance”, Economy Policy, 3(6): 13-61.
  5. Chattopadhyay, S. ve Bose, S. (2015). “Global Macroeconomic Performance: A Comparative Study Based on Composite Scores”, Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 4: 51-68.
  6. Dullien, S. (2017). “A New Magic Square for Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth A Policy Framework for Germany to Move beyond GDP”, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Ekren, N., Aykaç Alp, E. ve Yağmur, M. H. (2017). “Macroeconomic Performance Index: A New Approach to Calculation of Economic Wellbeing” Applied Economics, 49(53): 5462-5476.
  7. Firme V. de A.C. ve Teixeira, J.R. (2014). “Index of Macroeconomic Performance for a Subset of Countries: A Kaldorian Analysis form the Magic Square Approach Focusing on Brezilian Economy in the Period 1997-2012, Panoeconomicus, 5, Special Issue: 527-542.
  8. Fitoussi, J.P. ve Saraceno, F. (2004). “The Brussels-Frankfurt-Washington Consensus Old and New Tradeoffs in Economics”, SciencessPo., 2004- 02: 1-25.
  9. Gress, M. (2014) “Is Ukraıne Ready for the OECD Membershıp?”, Actual Problems of Economics, 8(158): 40-49.
  10. Güran, M. C. ve Tosun M. U. (2005), “Türkiye Ekonomisinin Makroekonomik Performansı: 1951-2003 Dönemi İçin Parametrik Olmayan Bir Ölçüm”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 60(4): 91-115.
  11. Hanke, S. (2018) “Hanke’s Annual Misery Index: The World’s Saddest (And Happiest) Countries” Forbes, 28 February 2018.
  12. Hutton, A., Dow, A. ve Deeney, T. (1988). “Meanin