Journals / Maliye Dergisi / 2011 / Sayı: 161

Testing physical investment and growth relationship in AK model perspective: The case for Turkey (1968-2006)

Fiziksel sermaye yatırımları ve büyüme ilişkisinin AK modeliyle sınanması: Türkiye örneği (1968-2006)

Pages
283–297
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)

Overall, the analysis of deterministic and stochastic trends in output growth and investment rates (in total investment, and in manufacturing, energy, and transportation investment expenditures) do not give support for the empirical validity of AK model.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the relationship between physical investment and economic growth based on AK type endogenous growth model for Turkey during the period 1968-2006.
📊
Key Findings & Data:AK type model which is one of the main endogenous growth models predicts increasing output growth rates as a result of permanent movements in the physical investment rate via spillover effects.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, the analysis of deterministic and stochastic trends in output growth and investment rates (in total investment, and in manufacturing, energy, and transportation investment expenditures) do not give support for the empirical validity of AK model.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between physical investment and economic growth based on AK type endogenous growth model for Turkey during the period 1968-2006. AK type model which is one of the main endogenous growth models predicts increasing output growth rates as a result of permanent movements in the physical investment rate via spillover effects. For that purpose, following Jones (1995), we employ recent time series methods like unit root tests that allow structural breaks in the data and impulse-response, variance decomposition analysis within VAR method, which enable us make inferences about the existence of stochastic and deterministic trends in the series. Overall, the analysis of deterministic and stochastic trends in output growth and investment rates (in total investment, and in manufacturing, energy, and transportation investment expenditures) do not give support for the empirical validity of AK model. Our results show that AK type model is not valid for Turkey. That is, physical capital investments do not stimulate output growth in the long-run.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, AK tipi içsel ekonomik büyüme teorisine bağlı olarak Türkiye’de 1968-2006 dönemi için fiziksel sermaye yatırımları ve büyüme arasındaki ilişki analiz edilmiştir. İçsel büyüme modellerinin temel yaklaşımlarından olan AK tipi modellerde fiziksel sermaye birikimi ve yatırımların dışsallıklarla uzun dönemde ekonomik büyümeyi artıracağı öngörülmektedir. Çalışmada, toplam yatırım harcamaları yanında imalat, enerji ve ulaştırma gibi yatırım harcama kalemleri de inceleme konusu yapılmıştır. Analiz yöntemi olarak Jones (1995)’u takiben zaman serilerine dayalı birim kök testleri ve VAR analizi kullanılmıştır. Bu yöntemler içerisinde geleneksel ve yapısal değişimli birim kök testleriyle etki-tepki analizlerine ve varyans ayrıştırmasına yer verilmiştir. Çalışma sonuçları AK tipi modellerin öne sürdükleri tezleri destekler nitelikte değildir. Diğer bir ifadeyle fiziksel sermaye yatırımları uzun dönemli büyüme oranını etkilememektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARISOY, İ. (2011). Testing physical investment and growth relationship in AK model perspective: The case for Turkey (1968-2006). Maliye Dergisi, Sayı: 161, 283–297. https://ajindex.com/articles/79065

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Ateş, S. (1998a), “Yeni İçsel Büyüme Teorileri ve Türkiye Ekonomisinin Büyüme Dinamiklerinin Analizi” Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Adana. Ateş, S. (1998b), “İçsel Büyüme Modellerinde Fiziksel Sermaye Yatırımlarının Önemi: Uluslararası Verilerle Bir Bakış” Çukurova Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1). Berber, M., Sivri, U. ve Artan, S. (2001), “Türkiye'de Yatırım Harcamaları-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi, AK Modeli Testi, 1968-1998”,
  2. İstanbul Üniversitesi,
  3. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Ekim, 61-70.
  4. Barro, R.J. (1990) “Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth” Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 103-125.
  5. De Long, B.J. ve Summers, L.H. (1991), “Equipment Investment and Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 445-502.
  6. De Long, B.J. ve Summers, L.H. (1992), “Equipment Investment and Economic Growth: How Strong is the Nexus?”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 157-99.
  7. De Long, B.J. ve Summers, L.H. (1994), “Equipment Investment and Economic Growth: Reply”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 803-07.
  8. Dickey, D. ve Fuller, W.A. (1979), “Distribution of the Estimates for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427-31.
  9. Dornbusch, R. ve Fischer, S. (1998), Makroekonomi (Çeviren: Yıldırım, E., Yıldırım, R. ve Fisunoğlu, M.), McGraw-Hill-Akademi Ortak Yayını, İstanbul.
  10. Jones, C.I. (1995), “Time Series Properties of Endogenous Growth Models”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 495–525.
  11. Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M.C. (2003), “Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4):1082-1089.
  12. Li, D. (2002), “Is the AK Model Still Alive? The Long-Run Relation Between Growth and Investment Reexamined”, Canadian Journal of Economics, 35, 92-114.
  13. Lucas, R.E. (1988), “On the Mechanics of Economic Development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3-42.
  14. Lutkepohl, H. ve Saikkonen, P. (1997), “Impulse Response Analysis in Infinite Order Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Process”, Journal of Econometrics, 81, 127-157.
  15. Mcgrattan, E. (1998), “A Defence of AK Growth Models”, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 22, 13-27.
  16. Ng, S. ve Perron, P. (2001), “Lag Length Selection and the Construction of Unit Root Tests with Good Size and Power”, Econometrica, 69, 1519-1554.
  17. Perron, P. (1989), “The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the