SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar / 2016 / Sayı: 622

On the Mechanics of Economic Growth, Financial Development and Income Inequality in the Context of Inverted-U Hypothesis

Ters-U Hipotezi BağlamındaEkonomik Büyüme, Finansal Kalkınmave Gelir Eşitsizliği MekanizmalarıÜzerine

Gönül YÜCE AKINCI
Merter AKINCI
Pages
61–77
Publication Date
2016-12-01
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)

In general, the validity of Kuznets Inverted-U Hypothesis can be said for Turkish economy

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the relationship among economic growth, financial development and income inequality is examined in the context of Inverted-U Hypothesis in the period 1960-2014 in Turkish economy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Enders-Siklos cointegration analysis is applied to determine the cointegration relationship among the variables and the findings of the TAR and M-TAR analysis show the validity of long-run relationships among the variables.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In general, the validity of Kuznets Inverted-U Hypothesis can be said for Turkish economy
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekonomik Büyüme · Finansal Kalkınma · Gelir Eşitsizliği

Abstract

In this study, the relationship among economic growth, financial development and income inequality is examined in the context of Inverted-U Hypothesis in the period 1960-2014 in Turkish economy. Enders-Siklos cointegration analysis is applied to determine the cointegration relationship among the variables and the findings of the TAR and M-TAR analysis show the validity of long-run relationships among the variables. Besides, the causality nexus among the variables is tested using Toda-Yamamoto causality analysis based on TECM and the causal linkages among the variables are found that are compatible with the expectations. The results of the simultaneous equation system supporting the causality findings point out that supply-leading hypothesis is valid and income inequality declines in parallel with rising economic growth. In general, the validity of Kuznets Inverted-U Hypothesis can be said for Turkish economy

Özet

Bu çalışmada; ekonomik büyüme, finansal kalkınma ve gelir eşitsizliği arasındaki ilişkiler Ters-U Hipotezi bağlamında Türkiye ekonomisi 1960-2014 dönemi için incelenmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin belirlenebilmesi amacıyla Enders-Siklos eşbütünleşme analizi uygulanmış ve TAR ile M-TAR analiz bulguları, ilgili değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli ilişkilerin geçerli olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bunun yanı sıra, değişkenler arasındaki nedensellik ilişkileri TECM temelli Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi ile sınanmış ve beklentilerle uyumlu olan nedensellik ilişkilerinin varlığı kanıtlanmıştır. Nedensellik bulgularını destekleyen eşanlı denklem sistemi tahmin sonuçları, arz-önderliği hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu ve ekonomik büyüme sürecinin hızlanmasına paralel olarak gelir eşitsizliklerinin azaldığını göstermiştir. Genel olarak belirtmek gerekirse, Türkiye ekonomisinde Kuznets Ters-U Hipotezi’nin geçerli olduğu söylenebilir

🔖

Cite This Article

AKINCI, G. Y., AKINCI, M. (2016). On the Mechanics of Economic Growth, Financial Development and Income Inequality in the Context of Inverted-U Hypothesis. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, Sayı: 622, 61–77. https://ajindex.com/articles/989176

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. AGHION, Philippe and Patrick BOLTON; (1997), “A Theory of Trickle-Down Growth and Development”, The Review of Eco- nomic Studies, 64(2), pp. 151-172.
  2. AKINCI, Merter; (2015), “Bulanık Suda Balık Avlamak: Trickle Down Etkisinin Türkiye Ekonomisinde Bölgeler-Arası Tahmini”, Çalışma ve Toplum, 44(1), ss. 195-220.
  3. ANG, James B.; (2010), “Finance and Inequality: The Case of India”, Southern Economic Journal, 76(3), pp. 738-761.
  4. BANERJEE, Abhijit V. and Andrew F. NEWMAN; (1993), “Oc- cupational Choice and the Process of Development”, Journal of Political Economy, 101(2), pp. 274-298.
  5. BROUWER, Gordon ve James GILBERT; (2005), “Monetary Policy Reaction Functions in Australia”, Economic Record, (253), pp. 124-134.
  6. CHANDAVARKAR, Anand; (1992), “Of Finance and Develop- ment: Neglected and Unsettled Questions”, World Develop- ment, 20(1), pp. 133-142.
  7. ÇİL-YAVUZ, Nilgün; (2006), “Türkiye’de Turizm Gelirlerinin Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkisinin Testi: Yapısal Kırılma ve Ne- densellik Analizi”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 7(2), ss. 162- DEININGER, Klaus and Lyn SQUIRE; (1997), “Economic Growth and Income Inequality: Reexamining the Links”, Fi- nance & Development, March97, pp. 38-41.
  8. DICKEY, David A. and Wayne A. FULLER; (1979), “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series With a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), pp. 427-431.
  9. DICKEY, David A. and Wayne A. FULLER; (1981), “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series With a Unit Root”, Econometrica, 49(4), pp. 1057-1072.
  10. DUASA, Jarita; (2009), “Asymmetric Cointegration Relation- ship Between Real Exchange Rate and Trade Variables: The Case of Malaysia”, MPRA Working Paper, No: 14535. ENDERS, Walter and Pierre L. SIKLOS; (2001), “Cointegration and Threshold Adjustment”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 19(2), pp. 166-176.
  11. FELTHAM, Sandra G. and David E. A. GILES; (2003), “Testing for Unit Roots in Semiannual Data”, David E. A. GILES (Eds) Computer-Aided Econometrics, Routledge, New York, pp. 153- GALOR, Oded and Joseph ZEIRA; (1993), “Income Distribu- tion and Macroeconomics”, The Review of Economic Studies, (1), pp. 35-52.
  12. GALOR, Oded and Omer MOAV; (2004), “From Physical to Hu- man Capital: Inequality and the Process of Development”, The Review of Economic Studies, 71(4), pp. 1001-1026.
  13. GHASSAN, Hassan B.; (2009), “Non Linear Adjustment in the MLR Condition Evidence from Threshold Cointegration”, Jour- nal of Economic Cooperation and Development, 30