Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacası OECD Ülkelerinde Geçerli mi?

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 317 - 337, 28.02.2025

Ceren Pehlivan , Özge Korkmaz

https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1594118

Abstract

Yatırımlar ve tasarruflar ekonomik performansın gelişiminde kritik bileşenler olarak kabul edilmektedir. Her ikisi de ekonomik kalkınmayı ve büyümeyi teşvik etmek için kullanılmaktadır. Feldstein-Horioka bulmacası, uluslararası sermaye hareketlerini temel alarak tasarruf ve yatırım arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemiştir. OECD ülkelerini kapsayan bu araştırmada Feldstein-Horioka bulmacasının geçerliliği 1990-2021 yılları için araştırılmıştır.

Keywords

Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacası Tasarruf Yatırım Westerlund (2007) Eşbütünleşme Testi

Ethical Statement

Etik komite onayı ve/veya yasal/özel izin gerektirmeyen bu çalışma, araştırma ve yayın etiğine uygundur.

References

  • Akadiri, S. S., Apinran, M. O., & Usman, N. (2020). New insight into Feldstein and Horioka paradox: analyzing the mediating roles of globalization, urbanization, and foreign direct investment. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2472
  • Akadiri, S. Saint, Ahmed, I. I., Usman, O., & Seraj, M. (2016). The Feldstein-Horioka paradox, a case study of Turkey. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 6(12), 744–749. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr/2016.6.12/102.12.744.749.
  • Akkoyunlu, S. (2020). Revisiting the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle for Turkey. Journal of Applied Economics, 23(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2020.1711592.
  • Balavac, M. (2011). The Role of Remittences in the Explanation of Feldstein-Horioka Paradox: Evidence from Transition Economies. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 24(4), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2011.11517483.
  • Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. In John Wiley & Sons.
  • Caglar, A. E., & Yavuz, E. (2017). Türkiye’de Yatırım-Tasarruf İlişkisinin Feldstein-Horioka Paradoksu Çerçevesinde Analizi: Farklı Tipte Eşbütünleşme Yaklaşımları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Ensti Tüsü Dergisi Pamukkale, 31, 143–152.
  • Çağlayan Akay, E., & Türküz, E. (2016). Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacasının Analizi. EconWorld2016@ ImperialCollege Proceedings, 1–18.
  • Celik, A., Kostekci, A., & Alola, A. A. (2024). Carbon neutrality implication of material productivity, total factor productivity and renewable energy uptake in the Nordics. Ecological Indicators, 160, 111813.
  • Corbin, A. (2001). Country Specific Effect in the Feldstein-Horioka Paradox: a Panel Data Analysis. Economics Letters, 72(3), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00447-5
  • Duran, H. E. ., & Ferreira-Loper, A. (2023). The Revival of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and Moderation of Capital Flows After the Global Financial Crisis (2008/09). Research in International Business and Finance, 351.
  • Erdugan, F. (2012). Görünüşte İlişkisiz Regresyon Modellerinde Parametre Tahmin Yöntemleri. In Çukurova Üniversitesi.
  • Esen, E., Yildirim, S., & Kostakoglu, S. F. (2012). Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi için Sınanması: ARDL Modeli Uygulaması. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 251–267.
  • Fouquau, J., Hurlin, C., & Rabaud, I. (2008). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Approach. Economic Modelling, 25(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2007.06.008
  • Frankel, J. A. (1979). Domestic Savings and International Caital Flows (No. 310).
  • Fujiki, H., & Kitamura, Y. (1995). Feldstein-Horioka Paradox Revisited. Institute of Economic Research, 13(1), 1–16.
  • Gómez, P. Ó., Serrano, R. H., & Robledo, C. J. (2015). The Feldstein-Horioka Paradox – Evidence for Colombia during 1925-2011. Ecos de Economía, 19(40), 4–24.
  • Greene, W. H. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Count Data. In Prentice Hall (Fifth).
  • Gül, E., & Acar, S. (2016). Tasarruflar ile Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkinin Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülke Grupları Örneği ile İncelenmesi. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 7(3), 54–78.
  • Hussain, T., Mehmood, B., Siddiqi, M. W., & Sarwar, S. (2011). The Feldstein-Horioka Paradox in the Perspective of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): A Pragmatic Validation. African Journal of Business Management, 5(16), 6839–6844. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM10.1560.
  • Ko, J.-H., & Funashima, Y. (2016). On the Sources of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle across Time and Frequencies. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 81(4), 889–910.
  • Lapp, S. (1996). The Feldstein-Horioka Paradox: A Selective Survey of the Literature (No. 752).
  • Oktayer, N., & Susam, N. (2007). Tasarruf-Yatırım-Sermaye Hareketleri İlişkisinin Türkiye Örneğinde Değerlendirilmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 19–54.
  • Özbay, F., & Duyar, I. (2022). Exploring the role of education on environmental quality and renewable energy: Do education levels really matter?. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100185.
  • Pata, U. K. (2018). The Feldstein Horioka Puzzle in E7 Countries: Evidence from Panel Cointegration and Asymmetric Causality Analysis. Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 27(8), 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2018.1480053
  • Pehlivan, C. (2022). Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacası ve Türkiye’den Kanıtlar. Birey ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 29–44.
  • Pesaran, M. H., (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, pp. 265- 312.
  • Ríos, V.-H. A., Zaldívar, M. G., & Santaulària Ventosa, D. (2011). Paradoja Feldstein-Horioka: El Caso de México (1950-2007). 26(2), 293–313.
  • Sachs, J. (1982). Aspects of the Current Account Behavior of OECD Countries. In NBER Working Paper (No. 859).
  • Şeyranlioğlu, O. (2023). ‘Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Sınanması: RALS Yaklaşımından Kanıtlar. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(3), 498–518.
  • Suruga, T., & Rahman, M. (2016). Feldstein-Horioka Paradox – The Case of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. European Journal of Business and Management, 8(2), 22–30.
  • Tatoglu, F.Y., (2018). Panel zaman serileri analizi, 2nd ed. Beta Yayınları, Istanbul.
  • Tuncsiper, B., & Bicen, O. F. (2016). Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin Görünürde İlişkisiz Regresyon Yöntemiyle Analizi: Gelişen Ekonomiler (E7) Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16(31), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.30976/susead.302174
  • Uzgören, N. (1999). Görünüşte İlişkisiz Regresyon Denklemlerinin Etkinliği Üzerinde Hatalar Arasındaki Korelasyonun ve Bağımsız Değişkenler Arasındaki Korelasyonun Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1, 139–154.
  • Vamvakidis, M. A., & Wacziarg, R. (1998). Developing Countries and the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle. In International Monetary Fund.
  • Vogelvang, B. (2005). Econometrics: Theory and Applications with EViews. In Pearson Education Limited. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Econometrics:+Theory+and+Applications+with+EViews#0
  • Yalcinkaya, O., & Huseyni, I. (2016). Tasarruf-Yatırım İlişkisi: Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin OECD Ülkeleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi (1980-2013). Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Dergisi, 31(1), 343–369. https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2016311479
  • Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2012). İleri Panel Veri Analizi: Stata Uygulamalı. Beta Yayınları.
  • Yildirim, D., & Koska, O. A. (2018). Puzzling out the Feldstein-Horioka Paradox for Turkey by a Time-Varying Parameter Approach. In The Dynamics of Growth in Emerging Economies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429436369-3
  • Yildirim, D., & Orman, E. E. (2018). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle in the Presence of Structural Breaks: Evidence from China. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 23(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2017.1396640
  • Zellner, A. (1962). An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests For Aggregation Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57(298), 348–368.
  • Zellner, A. (1963). Estimators for Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations: Some Exact Finite Sample Results. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(304), 977–992.
  • Westerlund, J., (2007). Panel Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Hypothesis, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23, pp. 193–233.

Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries?

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 317 - 337, 28.02.2025

Ceren Pehlivan , Özge Korkmaz

https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1594118

Abstract

Investments and savings are regarded as critical components in the evolution of economic performance. Both are employed to stimulate economic development and growth. Based on international capital movements, the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle investigated the relationship between savings and investment. The validity of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle was investigated in this investigation for the years 1990-2021, covering OECD countries.

Keywords

Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Saving Investment Westerlund (2007) Cointegration Test

Ethical Statement

This study, which does not require ethics committee approval and/or legal/special permission, complies with research and publication ethics.

References

  • Akadiri, S. S., Apinran, M. O., & Usman, N. (2020). New insight into Feldstein and Horioka paradox: analyzing the mediating roles of globalization, urbanization, and foreign direct investment. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2472
  • Akadiri, S. Saint, Ahmed, I. I., Usman, O., & Seraj, M. (2016). The Feldstein-Horioka paradox, a case study of Turkey. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 6(12), 744–749. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr/2016.6.12/102.12.744.749.
  • Akkoyunlu, S. (2020). Revisiting the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle for Turkey. Journal of Applied Economics, 23(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2020.1711592.
  • Balavac, M. (2011). The Role of Remittences in the Explanation of Feldstein-Horioka Paradox: Evidence from Transition Economies. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 24(4), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2011.11517483.
  • Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. In John Wiley & Sons.
  • Caglar, A. E., & Yavuz, E. (2017). Türkiye’de Yatırım-Tasarruf İlişkisinin Feldstein-Horioka Paradoksu Çerçevesinde Analizi: Farklı Tipte Eşbütünleşme Yaklaşımları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Ensti Tüsü Dergisi Pamukkale, 31, 143–152.
  • Çağlayan Akay, E., & Türküz, E. (2016). Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacasının Analizi. EconWorld2016@ ImperialCollege Proceedings, 1–18.
  • Celik, A., Kostekci, A., & Alola, A. A. (2024). Carbon neutrality implication of material productivity, total factor productivity and renewable energy uptake in the Nordics. Ecological Indicators, 160, 111813.
  • Corbin, A. (2001). Country Specific Effect in the Feldstein-Horioka Paradox: a Panel Data Analysis. Economics Letters, 72(3), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00447-5
  • Duran, H. E. ., & Ferreira-Loper, A. (2023). The Revival of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and Moderation of Capital Flows After the Global Financial Crisis (2008/09). Research in International Business and Finance, 351.
  • Erdugan, F. (2012). Görünüşte İlişkisiz Regresyon Modellerinde Parametre Tahmin Yöntemleri. In Çukurova Üniversitesi.
  • Esen, E., Yildirim, S., & Kostakoglu, S. F. (2012). Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi için Sınanması: ARDL Modeli Uygulaması. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 251–267.
  • Fouquau, J., Hurlin, C., & Rabaud, I. (2008). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Approach. Economic Modelling, 25(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2007.06.008
  • Frankel, J. A. (1979). Domestic Savings and International Caital Flows (No. 310).
  • Fujiki, H., & Kitamura, Y. (1995). Feldstein-Horioka Paradox Revisited. Institute of Economic Research, 13(1), 1–16.
  • Gómez, P. Ó., Serrano, R. H., & Robledo, C. J. (2015). The Feldstein-Horioka Paradox – Evidence for Colombia during 1925-2011. Ecos de Economía, 19(40), 4–24.
  • Greene, W. H. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Count Data. In Prentice Hall (Fifth).
  • Gül, E., & Acar, S. (2016). Tasarruflar ile Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkinin Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülke Grupları Örneği ile İncelenmesi. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 7(3), 54–78.
  • Hussain, T., Mehmood, B., Siddiqi, M. W., & Sarwar, S. (2011). The Feldstein-Horioka Paradox in the Perspective of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): A Pragmatic Validation. African Journal of Business Management, 5(16), 6839–6844. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM10.1560.
  • Ko, J.-H., & Funashima, Y. (2016). On the Sources of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle across Time and Frequencies. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 81(4), 889–910.
  • Lapp, S. (1996). The Feldstein-Horioka Paradox: A Selective Survey of the Literature (No. 752).
  • Oktayer, N., & Susam, N. (2007). Tasarruf-Yatırım-Sermaye Hareketleri İlişkisinin Türkiye Örneğinde Değerlendirilmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 19–54.
  • Özbay, F., & Duyar, I. (2022). Exploring the role of education on environmental quality and renewable energy: Do education levels really matter?. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100185.
  • Pata, U. K. (2018). The Feldstein Horioka Puzzle in E7 Countries: Evidence from Panel Cointegration and Asymmetric Causality Analysis. Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 27(8), 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2018.1480053
  • Pehlivan, C. (2022). Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacası ve Türkiye’den Kanıtlar. Birey ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 29–44.
  • Pesaran, M. H., (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, pp. 265- 312.
  • Ríos, V.-H. A., Zaldívar, M. G., & Santaulària Ventosa, D. (2011). Paradoja Feldstein-Horioka: El Caso de México (1950-2007). 26(2), 293–313.
  • Sachs, J. (1982). Aspects of the Current Account Behavior of OECD Countries. In NBER Working Paper (No. 859).
  • Şeyranlioğlu, O. (2023). ‘Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Sınanması: RALS Yaklaşımından Kanıtlar. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(3), 498–518.
  • Suruga, T., & Rahman, M. (2016). Feldstein-Horioka Paradox – The Case of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. European Journal of Business and Management, 8(2), 22–30.
  • Tatoglu, F.Y., (2018). Panel zaman serileri analizi, 2nd ed. Beta Yayınları, Istanbul.
  • Tuncsiper, B., & Bicen, O. F. (2016). Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin Görünürde İlişkisiz Regresyon Yöntemiyle Analizi: Gelişen Ekonomiler (E7) Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16(31), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.30976/susead.302174
  • Uzgören, N. (1999). Görünüşte İlişkisiz Regresyon Denklemlerinin Etkinliği Üzerinde Hatalar Arasındaki Korelasyonun ve Bağımsız Değişkenler Arasındaki Korelasyonun Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1, 139–154.
  • Vamvakidis, M. A., & Wacziarg, R. (1998). Developing Countries and the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle. In International Monetary Fund.
  • Vogelvang, B. (2005). Econometrics: Theory and Applications with EViews. In Pearson Education Limited. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Econometrics:+Theory+and+Applications+with+EViews#0
  • Yalcinkaya, O., & Huseyni, I. (2016). Tasarruf-Yatırım İlişkisi: Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin OECD Ülkeleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi (1980-2013). Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Dergisi, 31(1), 343–369. https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2016311479
  • Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2012). İleri Panel Veri Analizi: Stata Uygulamalı. Beta Yayınları.
  • Yildirim, D., & Koska, O. A. (2018). Puzzling out the Feldstein-Horioka Paradox for Turkey by a Time-Varying Parameter Approach. In The Dynamics of Growth in Emerging Economies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429436369-3
  • Yildirim, D., & Orman, E. E. (2018). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle in the Presence of Structural Breaks: Evidence from China. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 23(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2017.1396640
  • Zellner, A. (1962). An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests For Aggregation Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57(298), 348–368.
  • Zellner, A. (1963). Estimators for Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations: Some Exact Finite Sample Results. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(304), 977–992.
  • Westerlund, J., (2007). Panel Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Hypothesis, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23, pp. 193–233.
There are 42 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Panel Data Analysis, Monetary Policy
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Ceren Pehlivan 0000-0001-5632-2955

Özge Korkmaz 0000-0001-9275-1271

Early Pub Date February 27, 2025
Publication Date February 28, 2025
Submission Date November 30, 2024
Acceptance Date January 27, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 10 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Pehlivan, C., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2025). Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries?. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 10(1), 317-337. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1594118
 Download Cover Image

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvoKvjUr081z-KcdXLcXXPQTR9B7O8m0BOBg&s

by-nc.png

The articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.