Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Küresel Rekabet ve Büyüme İlişkisi

Abstract

Küreselleşmenin hız kazanmasıyla, dünya genelinde bir rekabet olgusu oluşmuş ve ekonomik büyümeyi sağlamak için ülkeleri yoğun bir rekabetle karşı karşıya bırakmıştır. Zaman içinde gelişen ilişkiler ağı, bu kavramın sadece ekonomik değil, sosyal, kültürel ve siyasal alanları da kapsamış ve dünya ülkelerinin ekonomik bağımlılıklarının ötesinde, zaman ve mekansal olarak bir dönüşümü ifade eden bir kavram olmuştur. Ülkeler için, ekonomiyi rekabet edebilir koşullara getirebilmek ve küresel risklerle sağduyulu ve akılcı bir yaklaşımla başa çıkabilmek önemli bir hedeftir. Dolayısıyla, küresel arenada konumunu korumak isteyen ülkeler kesinlikle rakiplerinden önde olmak durumundadır. Bu hedef, ancak rekabet gücünün yüksek olması ile mümkün olacaktır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, panel eşbütünleşme analizi ile 2009-2020 dönemi için küresel rekabet endeksinin gelişmekte olan ülkeler için büyüme üzerindeki etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Westerlund ve Edgerton'un (2007) eşbütünleşme testi sonucunda serilerin uzun vadede ilişkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. Uzun vadede küresel rekabetçilik endeksi değişkeninde %1’lik bir artışın GSYİH değişkeninde %7,3’lük bir artışa yol açacağı sonucuna varılmıştır. Görüldüğü gibi, rekabet arttıkça büyüme olumlu yönde etkilenmektedir. Ayrıca Boostrap Granger Nedensellik Analizi sonucunda büyüme ve küresel rekabetçilik endeksi için çift yönlü nedensellik belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Küresel Rekabet
• Büyüme
• Panel Veri Analizi

Relationship between Global Competition and Growth in Developing Countries

Abstract

With globalization, a phenomenon of competition has emerged throughout the world and countries have faced intense competition in order to achieve economic growth. The network of relations that developed over time has become a concept that covers not only economic, but also social, cultural and political areas of this concept and expresses a transformation in time and space beyond the economic dependence of the countries of the world. It is an important goal for countries to bring the economy to competitive conditions and to deal with global risks with a prudent and rational approach. Therefore, countries that want to maintain their position in the global arena must be ahead of their competitors. This target will only be possible with high competitive power. From this point of view, the aim of the study is to reveal the effect of the global competitiveness index on growth for the developing countries for the 2009-2020 period with panel cointegration analysis. As a result of the cointegration test of Westerlund and Edgerton (2007), it was determined that the series are related in the long run. It is concluded that a 1% increase in the global competitiveness index variable in the long run will lead to a 7.3% increase in the GDP variable. As can be seen, growth is positively affected as competition increases. In addition, as a result of the Boostrap Granger Causality Analysis, bi-directional causality was determined for growth and global competitiveness index.

Keywords

• Global Competition
• Growth
• Panel Data Analysis

References

1. Aghion, P., Harris, C., Howitt, P. & Vickers, J. (2001). Competition, Imitation and growth with step-by-step Innovation. The Review of Economic Studies, 68(3), 467-492.
2. Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R. & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-u relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701-728.
3. Breusch, T. S. & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and İts Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
4. Choi, I. (2001). Unit roots tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 229-272.
5. Dumitrescu, E. & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(1), 1450-1460.
6. Farinha, L., Ferreira, J. & Gouveia, B. (2016). Networks of Innovation and Competitiveness: A Triple Helix Case Study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 1-18.
7. Fagerberg, J. (1988). International competitiveness. The Economic Journal, 98(391), 355-374.
8. Gilbert, R. (2006). Looking for Mr. Schumpeter. Where are We in the Competition–Innovation Debate? Innovation Policy and the Economy, 6(1): 159-215.

9. Halpern, L. & Murakozy, B. (2015). The relationship between competition and R&D: Theoretical approaches and quantitative results. In: P. Valentiny., F. L. Kiss., K. Antal-Pomazi, & C. I. Nagy (Eds.), Competition and regulation, (pp. 113–137). Budapest: Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Hasan, I., & Tucci, C. L. (2010). The innovation–Economic growth nexus: Global evidence, Research Policy, 39(10), 1264-1276.
10. Hashmi, A. R. (2013). Competition and innovation: The inverted-U relationship revisited. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(5): 1653-1668.
11. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels”. Journal of Econometrics. 115(1), 53-74.
12. Maddala, G. S. & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Special Issue, 61(1), 631-652.
13. Marsh, I. W. & Tokarick, S. P. (1996). An assessment of three measures of competitiveness. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 132(4). 700-722.
14. Mccoskey, S. & Kao, C. (1998). A Residual-based Test of the Null of Cointegration in Panel Data. Econometric Reviews, 17(1), 57-84.
15. Paraušić, V., Cvijanović, D., Mihailović, B. & Veljković, K. (2014). Correlation between the state of cluster development and national competitiveness in the global competitiveness report of the world economic forum 2012-2013. Economic Research, 27(1), 662-672.
16. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Papers, 1233, 255-260.
17. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted lm test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
18. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
19. Pesaran, M. H. & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
20. Phillips, P. & Hansen, B. (1990). Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I(1) Processes. Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99-125.
21. Romer, P. M. & Rivera-Batiz, L. (1991). Economic integration and endogenous growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 531-555.
22. Romer, P. M. (1990). Are nonconvexities important for understanding growth? AEA Papers and Proceedings, 80(2), 97-103.
23. Rodrik, D. (1991). Closing the technology gap: Does trade liberalization really help?. Trade Policy, Industrialization and Development: A Reconsideration, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
24. Scoott, B. R. & Lodge, G. C. (1985). US Competitiveness in the World Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
25. Srivastava, S., Sultan, A. & Chashti, N. (2017). Influence of innovation competence on firm level competitiveness: An exploratory study. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 63-75.
26. Symeonidis, G. (2008). The effect of competition on wages and productivity: Evidence from the UK. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(1), 134-146.
27. Weerawardena, J. (2003). The role of marketing capability in innovation-based competitive strategy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(1), 15-35.
28. Westerlund, J. & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economic Letters, 97(3), 185-190.
29. Wilson, D. & Purushothaman, R. (2003). Dreaming with BRICS: The path to 2050. Goldman Sachs Global Economics Paper, 99, 1-10.
30. Yang, X. & Zhang, H. (2017). Intellectual property rights, migrants and competitiveness. International Journal of Development Issues, 16(1), 43-53.