This study aims to test neoclassical labour productivity and real wage equalization in the long run for the Turkish manufacturing industry in the 1963 1998 time span Using panel data analysis the results show that the labour productivity and real wage equalization theory is not valid for sectors in the Turkish manufacturing industry Keywords: Marginal productivity theory panel data analysis
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to test neoclassical labour productivity and real wage equalization in the long run for the Turkish manufacturing industry in the 1963 1998 time span Using panel data analysis the results show that the labour productivity and real wage equalization theory is not valid for sectors in the Turkish manufacturing industry Keywords: Marginal productivity theory panel data analysis
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to test neoclassical labour productivity and real wage equalization in the long run for the Turkish manufacturing industry in the 1963 1998 time span Using panel data analysis the results show that the labour productivity and real wage equalization theory is not valid for sectors in the Turkish manufacturing industry Keywords: Marginal productivity theory panel data analysis
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study aims to test neoclassical labour productivity and real wage equalization in the long run for the Turkish manufacturing industry in the 1963 1998 time span Using panel data analysis the results show that the labour productivity and real wage equalization theory is not valid for sectors in the Turkish manufacturing industry Keywords: Marginal productivity theory panel data analysis
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler Marjinal verimlilik teorisi · panel veri analizi
Abstract
This study aims to test neoclassical labour productivity and real wage equalization in the long run for the Turkish manufacturing industry in the 1963 1998 time span Using panel data analysis the results show that the labour productivity and real wage equalization theory is not valid for sectors in the Turkish manufacturing industry Keywords: Marginal productivity theory panel data analysis
Özet
Bu çalışmada, neoklasik iktisat yaklaşımının “reel ücretlerle işgücünün marjinal verimliliğinin uzun dönemde eşitleneceği” öngörüsü Türkiye imalat sanayinin 1963- 1998 dönemi için sınanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, kamu ve özel kesim imalat sanayinin çoğunda işgücü verimliliğinin reel ücretlere eşitlenme eğiliminde olmadığını göstermektedir.
LOPCU, Y. D. K., KAYTANCI, A. G. U. B., ATEŞ, Y. D. D. S. (2010). Marjinal Verimlilik Teorisi Ve Türkiye imalat Sanayii Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 1, 99–114. https://ajindex.com/articles/73796
Acemoglu, D. & Pischke, J. (1999) “The Structure of Wages and Investment in General Training” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.107, No.3, 539-572.
Almeida-Santos, F. & Mumford, K. (2006) “Employee Training, Wage Dispersion and Equality in Britain” (April 3), 1-35.
Archibald, G.C. (1960) “Testing Marginal Productivity Theory” The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.27, No.3, 210-213.
Arrow, K.J., Chenery, H.B., Minhas, B.S., & Solow, R.M. (1961) “Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.43, No.3, 225-250.
Barro, R.J. (1999) “Notes on Growth Accounting” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol.4, 119–137.
Bhaskar, V., Manning, A., & To, T. (2002) “Oligopsony and Monopsonistic Competition in Labor Markets” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.16, No.2 (Spring), 155-174.
Bulow, J.I. & Summers, L.H. (1986) “A Theory of Dual Labor Markets with Application to Industrial Policy, Discrimination, and Keynesian Unemployment” NBER Working Paper, (Seri No: 1666), 376-414.
Crepon, B., Deniau, N., & Perez-Duarte, S. (2002) “Wages, Productivity, and Worker Characteristics: A French Perspective” 1-24.
Daly, P., Olson, E., & Douglas, P.H. (1943) “The Production Function for Manufacturing in the United States, 1904”
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.51, No.1, 61-65.
Dearden, L., Reed, H., & Reenen, J.V. (2006) “The Impact of Training on Productivity and Wages: Evidence from British Panel Data” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68, 4, 397-421.
Dholakia, B. H. & Dholakia, A. (1975) “Empirical Test of the Marginal Productivity Theory of Wages: The Case of Indian Industries” IIMA Working Papers from Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department, No.81. Douglas, P. H. (1938) “Professor Cassel on the Statistical Determination of Marginal Productivity” The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne d’Economique et de Science politique, Vol.4, No.1, 22-33.
Erceg, C.J., Henderson, D.W., & Levin, A.T. (2000) “Optimal monetary policy with staggered wage and price contracts” Journal of Monetary Economics, 46, 281-313.
Fitzgerald, J. & Wicks, J. (1990) “Measuring The Value of Household Output: A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Approaches” Review of Income and Wealth, Series 36, No.2, 129-141.
Gordon, R. J. (1982) “Why U.S. Wage and Employment Behaviour Differs From That in Britain and Japan” The Economic Journal, Vol.92, No.365, 13-44.