TARIMSAL DESTEK, İKTİSADİ KALKINMA VE ENFLASYON ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİLERİN BOOTSTRAP PANEL NEDENSELLİK TESTİ İLE ANALİZİ

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 19, 347 - 364, 30.08.2022

Şerif Canbay Veysel İnal Mustafa Kırca

Abstract

Tarım sektörü gelişmiş ülke ve gelişmekte olan ülke ekonomileri açısından büyük önem taşımaktadır. Tarım iktisadi kalkınma ve yoksulluğu azaltmak için önem arz eden bir sektördür. Özellikle az gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerin en temel sorunlarından birinin sermaye birikiminin yetersizliği olduğu göz önüne alındığında, tarım sektörü bu grup ülkelerin kalkınmalarını destekleyebilecek sermaye birikimini sağlamaya imkân sunabilecek sektörlerden biridir. Fakat tarım sektörünün kendine has kırılgan yapısı birçok problemi de beraberinde getirebilmektedir. Bu sorunların başında tarımsal çıktılara özgü fiyat istikrarsızlığı yer almaktadır. Dolayısıyla tarım sektörünün ülke ekonomileri açısından önemi hükümetlerin bu sektörü koruyucu ve destekleyici politikalar üretmesine neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada BRICS+T ülkelerin 2000-2020 dönemlerini kapsayan verileri doğrultusunda, Kónya (2006) tarafından geliştirilen Bootstrap Panel Nedensellik testi kullanılarak tarımsal destekler, iktisadi kalkınma ve enflasyon arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları ülkeler arasında farklılık arz etmektedir. Çin ve Hindistan haricinde diğer ülkelerde tarımsal destekler, iktisadi kalkınma ve enflasyon değişkenleri arasında nedensellik ilişkileri tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Tarımsal Destekleme Politikası, Tarımsal Teşvikler, Ekonomik Kalkınma, Enflasyon, Bootstrap Panel Granger Nedensellik

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Thanks

Editorial süreçlerde emeği geçenlere teşekkür ederiz.

ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INFLATION BY BOOTSTRAP PANEL CAUSALITY TEST

Abstract

The agricultural sector is of great importance for the economies of developed and developing countries. Agriculture is a sector that is important both for economic development and for reducing poverty. Considering that the most fundamental problem of underdeveloped and developing countries is the lack of capital accumulation, the agricultural sector is one of the sectors that can provide capital accumulation that can support the development of these group countries. However, the uniquely fragile structure of the agricultural sector can bring along many problems. At the beginning of these problems is price instability specific to agricultural outputs. Therefore, the importance of the agricultural sector in terms of national economies causes governments to produce protective and supportive policies for this sector. In this study, it is aimed to examine the causal relationship between agricultural supports, economic development and inflation using the Bootstrap Panel Causality test developed by Kónya (2006) in line with the data of BRICS+T countries covering the period of 2000-2020. The findings of the study differ between countries. In countries other than China and India, causality relationships were determined between the variables of agricultural support, economic development and inflation.

Keywords

Agricultural Support Policy, Agricultural Subsidies, Economic Development, Inflation, Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality

Project Number

yok

References

• Abbott, P. C., Hurt, C. ve Tyner W. E. (2008). What's driving food prices? Farm Foundation Issue Report, https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/farm_foundation_whats_driving_food_prices.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 02. 04. 2022.
• Akyol, M. (2018). An examination of the relationship between agricultural incentives and agricultural added value: panel simulated equations system analysis for new ındustrialized countries. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 3(3), 226-236.
• Albers, R. ve Peeters, M. (2011). Food and energy prices, government subsidies and fiscal balances in South Mediterranean countries. Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/28788/ MPRA Paper No. 28788, Erişim Tarihi: 02. 05. 2022.
• Balisacan, A. M. & Roumasset, J. A. (1987). Public choice of economic policy: The growth of agricultural protection. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 123(2), 232-248.
• Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q. ve Kao, C. (2012). A lagrange multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 164-177.
• Bayraktar, Y. & Bulut, E. (2016). Tarımsal Desteklerin Değişen Yapısı ve Yüksek Tarımsal Desteklerin Nedenleri: Türkiye İçin Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz. Journal of the Faculty of Economics/Iktisat Fakültesi Mecmuasi, 66(1).
• Bekun, F. V. ve Akadiri, S. S. (2019). Poverty and agriculture in Southern Africa revisited a panel causality perspective. SAGE Open, 9(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019828853
• Bezlepkina, I. V. ve Lansink, A. O. (2006). Impact of debts and subsidies on agricultural production: farm-data evidence. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 45(1), 7-34.
• Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
• Canbay, Ş. (2021). Does agricultural support policy affect crop production in Turkey?. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 12(23), 130-140.
• Caracciolo, F., Gotor, E. ve Santeramo, F. G. (2014). European common agricultural policy impacts on developing countries commodities prices. Regional and Sectoral Economic, 14(2), 17-30.
• De Pintor, E., De Pintor, G. M. Z. ve Piacenti, C. A. (2021). The impact of agricultural policy in Brazil and Germany: a comparative approach between the Western Mesoregion of Paraná and Nordrhein-Westfalen State. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics, 76(3), 23-39.
• Ela, A., Miran, B., Bektaş, Z. K. ve Cankurt, M. (2016). The effects of alternative marketing and agricultural policies on supplies of conventional and organic raisins. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 31 (3), 345-352. doi: 10.7161/omuanajas.269987
• Erdal, H., Erdal, G. ve Ayyildiz, B. (2021). Are support policies for sustainable livestock important? Causality between animal existence and support policies: VECM analysis for Turkey. JAPS: Journal of Animal ve Plant Sciences, 31 (1), 254-264.
• Gautam, M. (2015). Agricultural subsidies: resurging interest in a perennial debate. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70(1), 83-105. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.229968
• Gruère, G. ve Brooks, J. (2021). Characterising early agricultural and food policy responses to the outbreak of COVID-19. Food Policy, 100, 102017.
• Gu, Z. (2014). Evolution of post-war agricultural support policiesin China’s Taiwan. Asian Agricultural Research, 6(11), 58-61.
• Hennessy, D. A. (1998). The production effects of agricultural income support polices under uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 46-57.
• Henningsen, A., Kumbhakar, S. ve Lien, G. (2009). Econometric analysis of the effects of subsidies on farm production in case of endogenous input quantities. AAEA & ACCI Joint Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
• Işık, H. B. ve Bilgin, O. (2016). The effects of agricultural support policies on agricultural production: The case of Turkey. In: RSEP International Conferences on Social Issuesand Economic Studies, 2nd Multidisciplinary Conference, 2-4 November, Madrid SPAIN, 111-119.
• Jomo, K. S. ve Chowdhury, A. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemic Recession and Recovery. Development, 63(2), 226-237.
• Kalabak, A. Y. ve Aslan, R. (2021). The effect of some area-based agricultural supports on wheat production: a case of Balıkesir (2009-2015). Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 39(1), 85-102. doi: 10.17065/huniibf.695851
• Kónya, L. (2006). Exports and growth: granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 23 (6), 978–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2006.04.008
• Kumar, A., Kumar, P. ve Sharma, A. N. (2011). Rural poverty and agricultural growth in India: implications for the twelfth five year plan. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 269-278.
• Kuznets, S., “Economic Growth and Income Inequality,”American Economic Review45(1955):1–28.
• Kuznets, S. (1972). Notes sur le décollage. Croissance et structure économique, Paris, Calmannlévy.
• Lundberg, M. (2005). Agricultural Market Reforms. A. Coudouel and S. Paternostro (Eds.), Analyzing the Distributional Impact of Reforms: A Practitioner’s Guide to Trade, Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy, Utility Provision, Agricultural Markets, Land Policy and Education. Washington DC: The World Bank.
• Malaisamy, A. (2021). Agricultural marketing system and price support–challenge, problems and policy suggestions for priority area in India. Formerly UGC Approved Journal, 12(48), 24-29
• McCloud, N. ve Kumbhakar, S. C. (2008). Do subsidies drive productivity? A crosscountry analysis of Nordic dairy farms. In: Bayesian econometrics. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ed. by Siddhartha Chib, William Griffiths, Gary Koop, Dek Terrell. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 23, 245-274.
• Nastis, S. A., Papanagiotou, E. ve Zamanidis, S. (2012). Productive efficiency of subsidized organic alfalfa farms. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 37(2), 280-288.
• OECD (2005). Agriculture and development: the case for policy coherence. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264013353-en.
• OECD (2022). Agricultural support (indicator). doi: 10.1787/6ea85c58-en, Erişim Tarihi: 25. 04. 2022.
• Oyakhilomen, O. ve Zibah, R. G. (2014). Agricultural production and economic growth in Nigeria: implication for rural poverty alleviation. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 53(3), 207-223.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113.
• Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted lm test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
• Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
• Rad-Tüzün, S. ve Aslan, S. J. (2018). Between the years 2002-2017 applied agricultural policies and practices in Turkey. Social Sciences Studies Journal, 4(21), 3271-3278. doi: 10.26449/sssj.749
• Roe, T., Somwaru, A. ve Diao, X. (2002). Do direct payments have ıntertemporal effects on U.S.’s agriculture? in government policy and farmland markets: the maintenance of farmer wealth. Trade and Macroeconomics Division International Food Policy Research Institute, ed. By Charles B. Moss and Andrew Schmitz, Iowa State Press.
• Sağdıç, E. N. ve Çakmak, E. (2021). The causality relationship between agricultural subsidy payments and agricultural production: the case of Turkey. Journal of the Human and Social Sciences Researches, 10(2), 1858-1880.
• Schneider, K. ve Gugerty, M. K. (2011). Agricultural productivity and poverty reduction: linkages and pathways. The Evans School Revie, 1, 56-74. doi: 10.7152/12259
• Schultz, T. W. (1964). Transforming traditional agriculture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Semerci, A., Kaya, Y., Şahin, İ. ve Çıtak, N. (2012). The effect of subsidizing policy in oil crops production over sunflower planted areas and producer welfare in Turkey. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 26(2), 55-62.
• Sims, C. A. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica, 48(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912017
• Skuras, D., Kostas, T., Dimara, E. ve Tzelepis, D. (2006). The effects of regional capital subsidies on productivity growth: a case study of the Greek food and beverage manufacturing industry. Journal of Regional Science, 46, 355-381.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (1987). Some theoretical aspects of agricultural policies. The World Bank Research Observer, 2(1), 43-60.
• Swamy, P.A.V.B., (1970). Efficient Inference In A Random Coefficient Regression Model. Econometrica, 38 (2), 311-323.
• Şaşmaz, M. Ü. ve Özel, Ö. (2019). Effect of agricultural incentives on the development of agricultural sector: example of Turkey. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 61, 50-65.
• Taylor, J. E. ve Lybbert, T. J. (2020). Essentials of development economics. In Essentials of Development Economics, Third Edition. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520975040
• Terin, M., Aksoy, A. ve Güler, İ. O. (2013). A study on determination of economic factors affecting agricultural growth. Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. & Tech., 3(3), 41-50.
• Uslu, H. ve Apaydın, F. (2021). An empirical analysis on agricultural productivity and area-based supports in Turkey. Hitit Journal of Social Sciences, 14(2), 477-499. doi: 10.17218/ hititsbd.1002014
• Vozarova, I. K. ve Kotulic, R. (2016). Quantification of the effect of subsidies on the production performance of the Slovak agriculture. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 298-304.
• World Bank, (2022a). GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2017 international $), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD, Erişim Tarihi: 02. 04. 2022.
• World Bank, (2022b). Consumer price index (2010 = 100), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL, Erişim Tarihi: 02. 04. 2022.
• World Bank, (2022). The World Bank Atlas method - detailed methodology. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/378832-what-is-the-world-bank-atlas-method. Erişim Tarihi: 02. 04. 2022.
• Yıldız, F. (2017). The Effect of Agricultural Support Payments Made from the Central Government Budget on Agricultural Production in Turkey: The Period of 2006- 2016, Sayıştay Dergisi, 104, 45-63.
• Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57(298), 348-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1962.10480664