SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 3

An Econometric Test of Ricardian Equivalance For Turkey

Türkiye İçin Ricardocu Denkliğin Ekonometrik Testi

Hüseyin AĞIR
Ayşe ZABUN
Pages
7–28
Publication Date
2015-12-01
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)

The results show that REH doesn’t apply for Turkish Economy and government consumption substitutes private consumption

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:asserts that whether a goverment finances its spending with debt or a tax way has no effect on total level of expenditure of private sector, and consumption, savings, investment, interest rates, the current account will not be affected in financing the budget deficit resulted from public spending.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to test validity of REH for the Turkish Economy with annual data of 1975-2013 period by using FMOLS method based on co-integration analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that REH doesn’t apply for Turkish Economy and government consumption substitutes private consumption
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ricardocu Denklik Hipotezi · Türkiye Ekonomisi · Eşbütünleşme

Abstract

asserts that whether a goverment finances its spending with debt or a tax way has no effect on total level of expenditure of private sector, and consumption, savings, investment, interest rates, the current account will not be affected in financing the budget deficit resulted from public spending. This study aims to test validity of REH for the Turkish Economy with annual data of 1975-2013 period by using FMOLS method based on co-integration analysis. The results show that REH doesn’t apply for Turkish Economy and government consumption substitutes private consumption

Özet

Ricardocu Denklik Hipotezi RDH , kamu harcamaları sonucunda ortaya çıkan bütçe açıklarının finansmanında, borçlanma ya da vergileme yolunun seçilmesinin özel kesimin harcamaları üzerinde bir etkisinin olmayacağını, tüketim- tasarruf- yatırım- faiz ve cari işlemler hesabının da bundan etkilenmeyeceğini ileri sürektedir. Bu çalışma eş bütünleşmeye dayalı FMOLS yöntemiyle Türkiye Ekonomisi üzerine 1975-2013 dönemi yıllık verilerini kullanarak RDH’yi test etmektedir. Buna göre, Türkiye Ekonomisi için RDH geçerli değildir ve hükümet tüketimi özel tüketimi ikame etmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

AĞIR, H., ZABUN, A. (2015). An Econometric Test of Ricardian Equivalance For Turkey. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 3, 7–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/99210

References (11)

  1. Afonso, A., (1999), Public Debt Neutrality And Private Consumption Same Evidence From The Euro Area, DGEP Research And Forecasting Deparment, Minustry Of Finance, Working Papers, No:11. Altıntaş, H. ve Çetintaş, H., (2010), “Türkiye’de Ekonomik Büyüme, Beşeri Sermaye ve İhracat Arasındaki İlişki Ekonometrik Analizi: 1970-2005”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 36, Ağustos- Aralık, ss. 33-56.
  2. Arıcan, E., (2005), “Ricardocu Denklik Teoremi ve Teorilerde Kamu Açıklarına ilişkin Yaklaşımlar: Türkiye Ekonomisine İlişkin Bir Uygulama”, Marmara Üniversitesi,
  3. İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Cilt: XX, Sayı:1, ss.77-94.
  4. Arestis, P., Demetriades, P.O. and Luintel, B.K., (2001), “Financial Development and Economic Growth: The Role of Stock Markets”, Jornal of Money, Credit and Banking, 33 (1), February. Ata, A.Y. ve Yücel, F., (2003), “Eş Bütünleşme ve Nedensellik Testleri Altında İkiz Açıklar Hipotezi: Türkiye Uygulaması”, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, cilt:12, sayı: 12, ss. 97-110.
  5. Barro, R.J., (1974), “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?”, Journal of Political Economy, ss. 1095-1117.
  6. Barro, R.J., (1989), “The Ricardian Approach to Budget Deficits”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3 (2), pp. 37-54.
  7. Bernheim, B.D., (1987), Ricardian Equivalance: an Evaluation of Theory and Evidence, NBER Working Papers, No: 2330. Buchanan, J.M., (1976), “Barro on the Ricardian Equivalance Theorem”, Journal of Poitical Economy, 84 (2), pp. 337-342.
  8. Charemza, W.W. and Deadman, D.F., (1997), New Directions in Econometric Practice, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Çebi, C. ve Çulha, A.A., (2013), “The Effects of Government Spending Shocks on the Real Exchange Rate and Trade Balance in Turkey”, TCMB Working Paper, No. 13/37. Çetin, A., (2005), “Kamu Borçlarının Makro Ekonomik Etkileri: Ampirik Analiz”, Gaziosman Paşa Üniversitesi, İİBF Dergisi, cilt:19, sayı:1, ss.68-79.
  9. Dickey, A.D., ve Fuller, A.W., (1981), “Likelihood Ratio Statistics For Autoregressive Time Series With A Unit Root”, Econometrica, 49 (4), ss. 1057-1072 http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rlo/readings/278800.pdf, (01.02.2014).
  10. Erdoğan, S. ve Yıldırım, D.Ç., (2014), “The Relationship Between The Budget Deficit and Current Account Deficit in Turkey”, Emerging Markets Journal, 3 (3), ss. 81 – 86. Feldstein, M., (1980), Government Deficits and Aggregate Demand, NBER Working Paper, No: 435, pp. 1-38.
  11. Giorgiani, G. and Holden, K., (2001), Does The Ricardian Equivalance Proposition Hold In Less Developed Countries, pp. 1-8.