SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

-

PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ

Can TUĞCU
Pages
17–31
Publication Date
2014-12-31
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)

In this regard, the considered hypothesis was tested by Hatemi-J (2008) cointegration test and it is concluded that the Neutrality Hypothesis does not hold for Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the most popular topics in the literature of macroeconomics is the Neutrality of Money Hypothesis which is defined as a permanent, unexpected change to the level of money supply has no effect on the level of real GDP in the long run.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this regard, the considered hypothesis was tested by Hatemi-J (2008) cointegration test and it is concluded that the Neutrality Hypothesis does not hold for Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This result implies that, policy makers can use money supply as an effective monetary policy instrument in order to affect the real macroeconomic variables
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Paranın Yansızlığı Hipotezi · Türkiye Ekonomisi · Eşbütünleşme

Abstract

One of the most popular topics in the literature of macroeconomics is the Neutrality of Money Hypothesis which is defined as a permanent, unexpected change to the level of money supply has no effect on the level of real GDP in the long run. If this hypothesis holds, policy makers cannot influence real macroeconomic variables by using monetary policies. The aim of this study is to test the Neutrality of Money Hypothesis in Turkey with considering possible structural breaks. In this regard, the considered hypothesis was tested by Hatemi-J (2008) cointegration test and it is concluded that the Neutrality Hypothesis does not hold for Turkey. This result implies that, policy makers can use money supply as an effective monetary policy instrument in order to affect the real macroeconomic variables

Özet

Makroekonomik literatür içerisindeki en popüler konulardan biri, para arzında meydana gelen beklenmeyen sürekli bir değişikliğin, uzun dönemde reel GSYH üzerinde herhangi bir etki yaratmayacağı şeklinde tanımlanan Paranın Yansızlığı Hipotezi’dir. Eğer bu hipotez geçerli ise politika yapıcıların para politikalarını kullanarak reel makroekonomik değişkenleri etkileme gücü ortadan kalkar. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Paranın Yansızlığı Hipotezi’nin Türkiye’de olası yapısal kırılmaları da göz önünde bulundurarak test edilmesidir. Bu doğrultuda, söz konusu hipotez Hatemi-J (2008) eşbütünleşme testi ile sınanmış ve Yansızlık Hipotezinin Türkiye’de geçerli olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu sonuca göre politika yapıcılar para arzını, reel makroekonomik değişkenleri etkilemek amacıyla, etkin bir para politikası aracı olarak kullanabilirler.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUĞCU, C. (2014). -. İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 17–31. https://ajindex.com/articles/8383

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. ABAAN, E. D., (1987), “Parasal Şok ve Reel Ekonomik Etkinlik,” ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 14 (3), s. 271-282.
  2. ASLAN, Ö. ve KORAP, L., (2007), “Testing Quantity Theory of Money for the Turkish Economy,” BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 1 (2), s. 93-109.
  3. BAE, S. K. ve JENSEN, M. J. ve MURDOCK, S. G., (2005), “Long-run Neutrality in a Fractionally Integrated Model,” Journal of Macroeconomics, 27 (2), s. 257-274.
  4. BARRO, R. J., (1977), “Unanticipated Money Growth and Unemployment in the United States,” American Economic Review, 67 (2), s. 101-115.
  5. BELADİ, H. ve SAMANTA, S. K., (1988), “Unanticipated Monetary Policy and Real Output: Some Evidence from the U.K. Economy,” Applied Economics, 20, s. 721-729.
  6. BOHARA, A. K., (1991), “Testing the Rational-Expectations Hypothesis: Further Evidence,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 9 (3), s. 337-340.
  7. BULLARD, J. B., (1999), “Testing Long-run Monetary Neutrality Propositions: Lessons from the Recent Research,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 81, s. 57-77.
  8. CHEN, S., (2007), “Evidence of the Long-Run Neutrality of Money: The Case of South Korea and Taiwan,” Economics Bulletin, 3 (64), s. 1-18. CUÑADO, J. ve GİL-ALANA, L. A. ve PÉREZ DE GRACıA, F., (2009), “New Evidence on Long-run Monetary Neutrality,” Journal of Applied Economics, 12, s. 229-248.
  9. EVANS, P., (1996), “Growth and the Neutrality of Money,” Empirical Economics, 21 (1), s. 187-202.
  10. FISHER, M. E. ve SEATER, J. J., (1993) “Long-run Neutrality and Superneutrality in an ARIMA Framework,” American Economic Review, 83, s. 402-415.
  11. FUNG, B. S. ve KASUMOVICH, M., (1998) “Monetary Shocks in the G-6 Countries: Is There A Puzzle?,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 42, s. 575-592.
  12. GREGORY, A. W. ve HANSEN, B. E., (1996), “Residual-based Tests for Cointegration In Models with Regime Shifts,” Journal of Econometrics, 70, s. 99–126
  13. HATEMİ-J, A., (2008), Tests for Cointegration with Two Unknown Regime Shifts: With An Application to Financial Market Integration,” Empirical Economics, 35, s. 497-505.
  14. JHA, R. ve DONDE, K., (2001), “The Real Effects of Anticipated and Unanticipated Money: A Test of the Barro Proposition in the Indian Context,” Indian Economic Journal, 49 (1), s. 21-30.
  15. KHATRI-CHETTRI, J. ve AMPON, K. ve MYLES, W., (1990), “Anticipated and Unanticipated Money in Thailand,” The American Economist, 34, s. 83-87.
  16. KING, R. G. ve WATSON, M. W., (1992), “Testing Long-Run Neutrality,” NBER Working Paper No. 4165. KING, R. G. ve WATSON, M. W., (1