SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2013 / Sayı: 36

FİNANSAL DIŞA AÇIKLIĞIN EKONOMİK BÜYÜMEYE ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Mehmet MERCAN
Osman PEKER
Pages
1–1
Publication Date
2013-06-01
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)

According to the results of long term analysis, effect of financial openness on growth in both models was statistically insignificant.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, McKinnon-Shaw’s thesis suggesting that capital movement liberalisation would increase economic growth was analysed with the bounds testing approach developed by Peseran et al. (2001) and with two models established by using annual data of the period 1992–2011 in Turkey sample.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the results of long term analysis, effect of financial openness on growth in both models was statistically insignificant.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, deviations in the models happening in short-term converge to equilibrium in the long-term
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Finansal Dışa Açıklık · Ticari Dışa Açıklık · Sınır Testi

Abstract

In this study, McKinnon-Shaw’s thesis suggesting that capital movement liberalisation would increase economic growth was analysed with the bounds testing approach developed by Peseran et al. (2001) and with two models established by using annual data of the period 1992–2011 in Turkey sample. According to the results of long term analysis, effect of financial openness on growth in both models was statistically insignificant. However, the effect of trade openness on growth is positive and significant in line with our expectations. In short-term analysis, on the other hand, coefficient of the error correction term in both models was negative and significant. Therefore, deviations in the models happening in short-term converge to equilibrium in the long-term

Özet

Bu çalışmada, McKinnon-Shaw’ın, sermaye hareketlerinin dışa açık hale getirilmesinin ekonomik büyümeyi arttıracağı savı, Türkiye örneğinde Pesaran vd. (2001) tarafından geliştirilen sınır testi yöntemi yardımıyla,1992-2011 dönemi aylık verileri kullanılarak kurulan iki model yardımıyla araştırılmıştır. Uzun dönem analizi sonuçlarına göre, her iki modelde de finansal dışa açıklığın büyüme üzerindeki etkisi istatistiki olarak anlamsız bulunmuştur. Ticari dışa açıklığın büyüme üzerindeki etkisi ise, beklentilerimizle uyumlu olarak pozitif ve anlamlı çıkmıştır. Kısa dönem analizinde ise, her iki modelde de hata düzeltme teriminin katsayısı negatif ve anlamlıdır. Yani modellerdeki kısa dönemde meydana gelen sapmalar uzun dönemde dengesine yakınsamaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

MERCAN, M., PEKER, O. (2013). FİNANSAL DIŞA AÇIKLIĞIN EKONOMİK BÜYÜMEYE ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 36, 1–1. https://ajindex.com/articles/660119

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. ACARAVCI, A., ÖZTÜRK, İ. ve ACARAVCI, S. K. (2007). “Finance- Growth Nexus: Evidence from Turkey”, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 11: 30-40.
  2. AKYÜZ, Y. (1994). “Globalleşme: Risklerin Belirlenmesi”, İşletme ve Finans, 110(5): 12-7.
  3. ASLAN, Ö. ve KÜÇÜKAKSOY, İ. (2006). “Finansal Gelişme ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerine Ekonometrik Bir Uygulama”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, 4: 12- BACCHETTA, P. (1992). “Liberalization of Capital Movement and of the Domestic Financial Sistem”, Economica, 59(11): 465-74.
  4. BEKAERT, G., HARVEY, C. R. and LUNDBLAD, C. (2005). “Does Financial Liberalization Spur Growth?”, Journal of Financial Economics, 77: 3-56.
  5. BERKMAN, A. N. (2011). “Türkiye’de Finansal Liberalizasyon ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki”, C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2): 259-278.
  6. BHAGWATI, J. and KRUEGER, A. O. (1995). “The Dangerous Drift to Preferential Trade Agreements”, Washington: American Enterprise Institute. BHAGWATI, J. (1998). “The Capital Myth: The Difference Between Trade in Widgets and Trade in Dollars”, Foreign Afairs, 77: 7-12.
  7. CHARI, A. and HENRY, P. B. (2002). “Capital Account Liberalization: Allocative Efficiency or Animal Spirits” NBER Working Paper, 8908. CHINN, M. D. and ITO, H. (2002). “Capital Account Liberalization, Institutions and Financial Development: Cross Country Evidence”, NBER Working Paper No. 8967. CHINN, M. D. and ITO, H. (2006). “What Matters for Financial Development? Capital Controls, Institutions, and Interactions” Journal of Development Economics. 81(1): 163–192.
  8. DETRAGIACHE, E. and DEMİRGÜÇ, A. (1997). “The Determinant of Banking Crises: Avidence from Developed and Developing Countries”, World Bank Working papers, 1828. DICKEY, D. and FULLER, W. A. (1979). “Distribution of the Estimates for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74: 427-431.
  9. EICHENGREEN, B., MICHAEL, M., GIOVANNI, D. and DETRAGIACHE, E. (1998). “Capital Account Liberalization Theoretical and Practical Aspects”, IMF Occasional Papers, 172: 12-30.
  10. EICHENGREEN, B. and LEBLANG, D. (2002). “Capital Account Liberalization and Growth: Was Mr. Mahathir Right?”, www.nber.org/papers/w9427. EMSEN, Ö. S. ve DEĞER, M. K. (2006). “Ticari ve Siyasal Liberalizasyon ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkileri: Geçis Ekonomileri Deneyimi”, Atatürk Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2): 61-180.
  11. ENDERS, W. (1