KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sosyoekonomi / 2015 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 24

Regional Convergence in Turkey Regarding Welfare Indicators

Seda ÖZGÜL
Metin KARADAĞ
Sayfa
38–50
Yayın Tarihi
2015-04-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Only the population growth rate which is used in the analysis and per capita GDP as dependent variable has negative and significant results.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The main aim of this study is to investigate conditional convergence by using welfare indicators at NUTS 2 level in Turkey.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:We use cross-section analysis for the 1990-2001 time period for the aim of the study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Only the population growth rate which is used in the analysis and per capita GDP as dependent variable has negative and significant results.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2001 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

The main aim of this study is to investigate conditional convergence by using welfare indicators at NUTS 2 level in Turkey. We use cross-section analysis for the 1990-2001 time period for the aim of the study. Three growth indicators were used as the dependent variable, which are per capita GDP, per person employed GDP and development index. Hence, the effects of illiterate population rate, high school graduated rate, public capital per person, population growth rate on convergence were investigated. The results of this study show that there is some evidence of unconditional convergence in Turkey in general. Moreover, the results indicate that socio-economic indicators have no effect on regional growth in general. Only the population growth rate which is used in the analysis and per capita GDP as dependent variable has negative and significant results.

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to investigate conditional convergence by using welfare indicators at NUTS 2 level in Turkey. We use cross-section analysis for the 1990-2001 time period for the aim of the study. Three growth indicators were used as the dependent variable, which are per capita GDP, per person employed GDP and development index. Hence, the effects of illiterate population rate, high school graduated rate, public capital per person, population growth rate on convergence were investigated. The results of this study show that there is some evidence of unconditional convergence in Turkey in general. Moreover, the results indicate that socio-economic indicators have no effect on regional growth in general. Only the population growth rate which is used in the analysis and per capita GDP as dependent variable has negative and significant results.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ÖZGÜL, S., KARADAĞ, M. (2015). Regional Convergence in Turkey Regarding Welfare Indicators. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 24, 38–50. https://ajindex.com/articles/139558

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (16)

  1. Altınbaş, S. & F. Doğruel & M. Güneş (2002), “Türkiye’de Bölgesel Yakınsama: Kalkınmada Öncelikli İller Politikası Başarılı mı?”, VI. ODTÜ Uluslararası Ekonomi Kongresi, 11-14
  2. Eylül, Ankara.
  3. Artan, S. & M. Berber & R. Yamak (2000), “Türkiye’de yakınlaşma hipotezinin bölgeler bazında geçerliliği üzerine ampirik bir çalışma: 1975-1997”, 9. Ulusal Bölge Bilimi ve Bölge Planlama Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, 51-59.
  4. Artelaris, P. & D. Kallioras & G. Petrakos (2010), “Regional inequalities and convergence clubs in the European Union new member-states”, Eastern Journal of European Studies, 1(1), 113-133.
  5. Azomahou, T.T. & J. El-ouardighi & P. Nguyen-Van & T. Kim Cuong Pham (2011), “Testing convergence of European regions: A semiparametric approach”, Economic Modelling, 28, May, 1202-1210.
  6. Baumol, W.J (1986), “Productivity Growth, Convergence and Welfare: What the Long-Run Data Show?”, American Economic Review, 76(5), 1072–85.
  7. Barro, R. (1991), “Economic Growth in a Cross-section of Countries”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 406-443.
  8. Barro, R. & X. Sala-i-Martín (1991), “Convergence across States and Regions”, Brooking Papers of Economic Activity, 1: 107–82.
  9. Barro, R. & X. Sala-i-Martín (1992), “Convergence”, Journal of Political Economy, 100(2): 223–51.
  10. Caselli, F. & G. Esquivel & F. Lefort (1996), “Reopening the Convergence Debate: A New Look at Cross-Country Growth Empirics”, Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 363-389.
  11. Canaleta, C.G. & P.P. Arzoz & M.R. Gárate (2002), “Structural Change, Infrastructure and Convergence in the Regions of the European Union”, European Urban and Regional Studies, 9(2), 115–135.
  12. Cheung, Y. & A. Pascula (2004), “Testing for Output Convergence a Re-Examination”, Oxford Economic Papers, 56, 45-63.
  13. Costa, M. & S. Iezzi (2004), “Technology spillover and regional convergence process: a statistical analysis of the Italian case”, Statistical Methods and Applications, 13: 375–398.
  14. De Long, J.B. (1988), “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: Comment”, American Economic Review, 78(5), 1138-1154.
  15. Doğruel, F. & S. Doğruel (2003), “Türkiye’de Bölgesel Gelir Farklılıkları ve Büyüme, İktisat ÜzerineYazılar”, Korkut Boratav’a Armağan, İletişim Yayınları.
  16. Filiztekin, A. (1998), “Convergence across Regions and Provinces”, Koç University Working Paper Series, No. 1998/08. Gezici F. & G.J.D. Hewings (2004), “Regional Convergence and the Economic Performance of Peripheral Areas in Turkey”, RURDS, Vol. 16, No 2. Islam, N. (1995), “Growth Empir