Journals / Maliye Dergisi / 2018 / Sayı: 174

Globalization, Unemployment and Public Sector Empolyment Relation

Küreselleşme, İşsizlik ve Kamu İstihdamı İlişkisi

Pages
131–153
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)

As a result of the analysis, it was conclude that, In Turkey, the solution of the growing unemployment due to globalization and external risks, the government used the public sector employment as a policy instrument in accordance with the compensation hypothesis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Economies that are opened up by globalization become vulnerable to exogenous risks at the same time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The government , which aims to provide full employment under price stability, can use public sector employment to compensate the negative employment effects of external shocks in order to achive this aim within the context of the compensatory hypothesis The purpose of this study, is to analyze the relationship between globalization, unemployment and public sector employment in Turkey between the years 1980-2016 based on the error correction model of the scope of Granger causality test.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analysis, it was conclude that, In Turkey, the solution of the growing unemployment due to globalization and external risks, the government used the public sector employment as a policy instrument in accordance with the compensation hypothesis.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Economies that are opened up by globalization become vulnerable to exogenous risks at the same time. The government , which aims to provide full employment under price stability, can use public sector employment to compensate the negative employment effects of external shocks in order to achive this aim within the context of the compensatory hypothesis The purpose of this study, is to analyze the relationship between globalization, unemployment and public sector employment in Turkey between the years 1980-2016 based on the error correction model of the scope of Granger causality test. As a result of the analysis, it was conclude that, In Turkey, the solution of the growing unemployment due to globalization and external risks, the government used the public sector employment as a policy instrument in accordance with the compensation hypothesis.

Özet

Küreselleşme ile dışa açılan ekonomiler aynı zamanda dışsal risklere karşı da açık hale gelmektedir. Fiyat istikrarı altında tam istihdamı sağlama amacında olan devlet, bu amacı gerçekleştirebilmek için telafi hipotezi kapsamında dışsal şokların negatif istihdam etkilerini telafi etmek için kamu istihdamını bir araç olarak kullanabilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1980- 2016 yılları arasında Türkiye’de küreselleşme, işsizlik ve kamu istihdamı arasındaki ilişkinin hata düzeltme modeline dayalı Granger nedensellik testi kapsamında analiz edilmesidir. Yapılan analiz sonucunda Türkiye’de küreselleşme ve dışsal riskler nedeni ile artan işsizliğin çözümünde, devletin telafi hipotezine uygun olarak kamu istihdamını bir politika aracı olarak kullanıldığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYTAÇ, D. (2018). Globalization, Unemployment and Public Sector Empolyment Relation. Maliye Dergisi, Sayı: 174, 131–153. https://ajindex.com/articles/78858

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Agenor, P.R. (1996), “The Labour Market and Economic Adjustment”, IMF Staff Papers, 43(2), 261-335.
  2. Attanasio, O., Goldberg, P. ve Pavcnik, N. (2004), “Trade Reforms and Wage ınequality in Colombia”, Journal of Development Economics, 74(2), 331-366.
  3. Benarroch, M. ve Pandey, M. (2012), “The Relationship Between Trade Openness and Government Size: Does Disaggregating Government Expenditure Matter?”, Journal of Macroeconomics, 34(1), 239-252.
  4. Brecher, R.A. (1974), “Minimum Wage Ratesand the Pure Theory of International Trade”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 5(1), 98-116.
  5. Cameron, D. (1978), “The Expansion of The Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis”, American Political Science Review, 72(4), 1243-1261.
  6. Commander, S., Davoodiand, H. ve Lee, U.J. (1996), The Causes and Consequences of Government for Growth and Well-being, Washington, DC: World Bank. Davidson, C., Martin, L. ve Matusz, S. (1999), “Trade and Search Generated Unemployment”, Journal of International Economics 48, 271-299.
  7. Davis, D.R. (1998), “Does European Unemployment Prop up American Wages? National Labor Markets and Global Trade”, American Economic Review, 88(3), 478-494.
  8. Egger, H. ve Kreickemeier, U. (2009), “Firm Heterogeneity and the Labor Market Effects of Trade Liberalization”, International Economic Review, 50(1), 187-216.
  9. Enders, W. (2004),
  10. Applied Econometric Time Series, New York: John Wiley and Sons INC. Epifani, P. ve Gancia, G. (2008), “Openness, Government Size and the Terms of Trade”, Working Paper Series. Institude for Emprical Research in Economics University of Zurich. Felbermayr, G., Prat, J. ve Schmerer, H. (2011), “Trade and Unemployment:What Do the Data Say?”, European Economic Review, 55(6), 741-758.
  11. Garen, J. ve Trask, K. (2005), “Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments? Another Look”, Journal of Development Economics, 77, 533-551.
  12. Garrett, G. (2001), “Globalization and Government Spending Around the World”, Studies in Comparative International Development, 35, 3-29.
  13. Ghose, A.K, Majid, N. ve Ernst, C. (2010),
  14. Küresel İstihdam Sorunu, Çev: Ö.F. Çolak, Efil Yayınevi,
  15. Ankara.
  16. GİB (2009), Kayıt Dışı Ekonomiyle Mücadele Stratejisi Eylem Planı (2008- 2010), Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı: Strateji Geliştirme Daire Başkanlığı, Yayın No: 87, Ankara.
  17. Gözgör, G. (2014), “The Impact of Trade Openness on the Unemployment Rate in G7 Countries”, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 23(7), 1018-1037.
  18. Helpman, E., Itskhoki, O. ve Redding, S. (2010), “Inequality a