Kayıtdışı Ekonominin Sektörel Analizi: Türkiye Örneği

Abstract

Amaç: Kayıtdışı ekonomi ekonomik faaliyetlerin resmi ulusal gelir hesaplarına kaydedilmemesi veya eksik kaydedilmesi olarak tanımlanabilir. Türkiye’de kayıtdışı ekonominin büyüklüğü milli gelirin yaklaşık %25’ini oluşturmaktadır (Elgin vd., 2021). Bir başka deyişle Türkiye ekonomisindeki faaliyetlerin dörtte biri kayıt dışıdır. Bu bağlamda, Türk ekonomisinin en temel sorunlarından biri olan kayıtdışı faaliyetlerin nedenlerinin belirlenmesi önem arz etmektedir. Yöntem: Bu çalışmada, 1990-2018 dönemi yıllık verileri kullanılarak Türkiye’deki tarım, sanayi, imalat ve hizmetler sektörü dağılımının kayıtdışı ekonomi üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla öncelikle Genişletilmiş Dickey Fuller ve Phillips-Perron birim kök testleri kullanılarak değişkenlerin durağanlıkları sınanmıştır. Değişkenlerin düzeyde ve birinci farklarında durağan olduğu tespit edildikten sonra Gecikmesi Dağıtılmış Otoregresif sınır testi ile değişkenlerdeki eşbütünleşme ilişkisi sınanmıştır. Değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli bir eşbütünleşme ilişkisi tespit edildiğinden Gecikmesi Dağıtılmış Otoregresif modeli genel tahmin sonuçları ile uzun ve kısa dönem katsayıları belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Analiz sonuçlarına göre, GSYH içinde tarımın payı %1 arttığında kayıtdışı ekonomi %0,79 artmaktadır. Buna karşın GSYH içinde sanayi sektörünün payı %1 arttıkça kayıtdışı ekonomi %0,82 ve hizmetler sektörünün payı %1 arttığında kayıtdışı ekonomi %1,12 azalmaktadır. Ampirik sonuçlar, Türkiye’de tarım sektörünün kayıtdışı ekonomiyi arttırdığını göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda gerekli politika önlemlerinin alınarak olası çözüm yollarının geliştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Özgünlük: Literatürde ağırlıklı olarak kayıtdışı ekonomiyi tahmin etme yönünde araştırmalar mevcuttur. Ancak tarım, sanayi, hizmetler gibi temel sektörlerin Türkiye GSMH’si içindeki gelişiminin kayıtdışılık üzerindeki etkisini araştıran çalışmaya rastlanılmamıştır. Ayrıca çalışmada kullanılan yöntem, açıklayıcı, kontrol ve kukla değişkenler bağlamında benzer çalışmalardan farklılaşmaktadır. Çalışmanın bulgularına göre, Türkiye’de GSMH içinde tarım sektörünün payı arttıkça kayıtdışı ekonomi artmaktadır. Çalışmanın bu sonucu tarım sektörü özelinde gerekli politikaların uygulanması yönünde yol gösterici olabilecektir

Keywords

• Kayıtdışı Ekonomi
• Sektörel Analiz
• ARDL
• Eşbütünleşme Analizi

Sectoral Analysis of the Informal Economy: A Case Study in Turkey

Abstract

Purpose: Informal economy can be defined as not registering economic activities in official national income accounts or registering them incompletely. Turkey's informal economy accounts for around 25% of national income. In other words, one quarter of Turkey's economic activity is not included in the statistics. In this context, it is important to determine the causes of informal activities, one of the major problems of Turkey's economy. Methodology: In this study, the impact of the distribution of the agricultural, industrial, manufacturing and services sector in Turkey on the informal economy was studied. This research aims to examine the empirical cointegration, long and short run dynamics between main sectors and informal economy in Turkey over the period of 1990–2018. For this purpose, the stagnation of variables was examined by using the Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) and Phillips-Perron (PP) unit root tests. Once the variables were determined to be stationary at the level and at the first difference, the cointegration relationship in the series was tested with the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) bounds test. The analysis finds out that there is a cointegration in the variables. The short run and long run relationships between variables are identified by Error Correction Model (ECM) and the ARDL cointegration test respectively. Findings: The results of the analysis show that as the share of agriculture in GDP increases by 1%, the informal economy increases by 0.79%. In addition, as the industrial sector's share of GDP increases by 1%, the informal economy decreases by 0.82% and as the services sector's share of GDP increases by 1%, the informal economy decreases by 1.12%. The empirical results indicate that the Turkish agricultural sector is increasing the informal economy. In this context, possible solutions need to be developed with the necessary policy measures. Originality: A large number of studies on estimating the informal economy are found in the literature. However, no study has been found that investigates the impact of the development of basic sectors such as agriculture, industry and services within Turkey's GNP on informality. In addition, the method used in the study differs from previous studies in terms of explanatory, control and dummy variables. According to the study's findings, the informal economy increases in conjunction to the agriculture sector's share of Turkey's GNP. This study's findings can be used as a guide for implementing appropriate policies, particularly in the agriculture sector.

Keywords

• Informal Economy
• Sectoral Analysis
• ARDL
• Co-integration Analyses

References

1. Albayrak, M., & Güneş, E. (2019). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Taım Sektörünün Yeri ve Önemi. In A. Özçelik (Ed.), Tarım Ekonomisi (pp. 18–37). Anadolu Üniversitesi.
2. Altuğ, O. (1997). Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin Boyutları by Osman Altuğ (aslı). Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, 257–276.
3. Berdiev, A. N., & Saunoris, J. W. (2016). Financial development and the shadow economy: A panel VAR analysis. Economic Modelling, 57, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECONMOD.2016.03.028
4. Brown, R. L., Durbin, J., & Evans, J. M. (1975). Techniques for Testing the Constancy of Regression Relationships Over Time. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 37(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1975.tb01532.x
5. Canh, N. P., & Thanh, S. D. (2020). Financial development and the shadow economy: A multi-dimensional analysis. Economic Analysis and Policy, 67, 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.05.002
6. Choi, J. P., & Thum, M. (2005). Corruption and the shadow economy. International Economic Review, 46(3), 817–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2005.00347.x
7. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series With a Unit Root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348
8. Dilnot, A., & Morris, C. N. (1981). What Do We Know About the Black Economy? Fiscal Studies, 2(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.1981.tb00457.x

9. Dreher, A., Kotsogiannis, C., & McCorriston, S. (2009). How do institutions affect corruption and the shadow economy? International Tax and Public Finance, 16(6), 773–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-008-9089-5
10. Edelmann, D. (2009). Analysing and managing the political dynamics of sector reforms: a sourcebook on sector-level political economy approaches. In The Overseas Development Institute.
11. Eilat, Y., & Zinnes, C. (2002). The Shadow Economy in Transition Countries: Friend or Foe? A Policy Perspective. World Development, 30(7), 1233–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00036-0
12. Elgin, C., Kose, M. A., Ohnsorge, F., & Yu, S. (2021). Understanding Informality (CERP Discussion Paper 16497).
13. Farzanegan, M. R., Hassan, M., & Badreldin, A. M. (2020). Economic liberalization in Egypt: A way to reduce the shadow economy? Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(2), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.09.008
14. Ferman, P. R., & Ferman, L. A. (1973). The Structural Underpinnings of the Irregular Economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841117300800101
15. Fosu, O.-A. E., & Magnus, F. J. (2006). Bounds Testing Approach to Cointegration: An Examination of Foreign Direct Investment Trade and Growth Relationships. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 3(11), 2079–2085.
16. Frey, B. S., Weck, H., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1982). Has the shadow economy grown in Germany? An exploratory study. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 118(3), 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02706263
17. Gutmann, P. M. (1977). The Subterranean Economy. Financial Analysts Journal, 33(6), 26–34.
18. Huynh, C. M., & Nguyen, T. L. (2019). Fiscal policy and shadow economy in Asian developing countries: does corruption matter? Empirical Economics 2019 59:4, 59(4), 1745–1761. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00181-019-01700-W
19. ILO. (1972). Employment, Incomes and Equality, a strategy for increasing productive employment in Kenya. In Report of An Inter-Agency Team Fınanced By The Unıted Natıons Development Programme And Organized By The Internatıonal Labour Offıce. https://doi.org/10.2307/3516123
20. Ilgın, Y. (1999). Kayıtdışı Ekonomi ve Türkiye’deki Boyutlar. DPT Yayın No.2492.
21. Kelmanson, B., Kirabaeva, K., Medina, L., & Mircheva, B. (2019a). Explaining the Shadow Economy in Europe: Size, Causes and Policy Options. In IMF Working Papers (WP/19/278). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3523151
22. Kelmanson, B., Kirabaeva, K., Medina, L., & Mircheva, B. (2019b). Explaining the Shadow Economy in Europe: Size, Causes and Policy Options. In IMF Working Papers (WP/19/278). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3523151
23. Kızılkaya, O., Sofuoğlu, E., & Karaçor, Z. (2016). Türkiye’de Turizm Gelirleri-Ekonomik Büyüme Iliskisi: ARDL Sinir Testi Yaklasimi/The Relationship Between Tourism Revenues and Economic Growth in Turkey: ARDL Bound Test Approach. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İİBF Yonetim ve Ekonomi, 23(1), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.2015/Yayına
24. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54(1–3), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
25. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1999). The Quality of Government. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 15(1), 222–279.
26. Lee, J., Strazicich, M., Lee, J., & Strazicich, M. (2003). Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815961
27. Lewis, W. A. (1955). The theory of economic growth. In The Theory of Economic Growth. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203709665
28. Loayza, N. V. (1996). The economics of the informal sector: a simple model and some empirical evidence from Latin America. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 45, 129–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2231(96)00021-8
29. Luong, T. T. H., Nguyen, T. M., & Nguyen, T. A. N. (2020). Rule of law, economic growth and shadow economy in transition countries. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(4), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO4.145
30. McCrohan, K. F., & Smith, J. D. (1986). A Consumer Expenditure Approach to Estimating the Size of the Underground Economy. Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251599
31. Narayan, P. K., & Smyth, R. (2006). What determines migration flows from low-income to high-income countries? An empirical investigation of Fiji-U.S. migration 1972-2001. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24(2), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byj019
32. Ozertan, G. (2020). Tarım Sektöründe Kurumsal Yapı: Türkiye İçin Yapılabilecekler. İktisat ve Toplum Dergisi, 113(June), 59–61.
33. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAE.616
34. Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335. https://doi.org/10.2307/2336182
35. Portes, A., & Sassen-Koob, S. (1987). Making it Underground : Comparative Material on the Informal Sector in Western Market Economies. The American Journal of Sociology, 93(1), 30–61.
36. Savasan, F. (2003). Modelling the Underground Economy in Turkey: Randomized Response and MIMIC Models. Journal of Economic Insight (Formerly the Journal of Economics (MVEA), 29(1), 49–76.
37. Schneider, F. (2010). The influence of public institutions on the shadow economy: An empirical investigation for OECD countries. In Review of Law and Economics (Vol. 6, Issue 3, pp. 441–468). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.2202/1555-5879.1542
38. Stepick, A. (1989). Miami’s two informal sectors. In A. Porters, M. Castells, & L. A. Benton (Eds.), The Informal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less Developed Countries (pp. 111–131). https://doi.org/10.2307/2579388
39. Tanzi, V. (1983). The Underground Economy in the United States: Annual Estimates, 1930-80. In IMF Staff papers (Vol. 30, Issue 2). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.2307/2288163
40. Tanzi, V. (1999). Uses and Abuses of Estimates of the Underground Economy. The Economic Journal, 109(456), 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00437
41. Vuletin, G. (2008a). Measuring the Informal Economy in Latin America and the Caribbean (WP/08/102).
42. Vuletin, G. (2008b). Measuring the Informal Economy in Latin America and the Caribbean (WP/08/102).
43. Wu, F. D., & Schneider, F. (2019). Nonlinearity Between the Shadow Economy and Level of Development. In IMF Working Papers (Vol. 19, Issue 48). https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484399613.001
44. Yurdakul, F. (2008). Türkiye’de Kayıtdışı Ekonomi: Bir Model Denemesi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 63(4), 206–221.
45. Zaman, G., & Goschin, Z. (2015). Shadow Economy and Economic Growth in Romania. Cons and Pros. Procedia Economics and Finance, 22(November 2014), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00229-4
46. Zolkover, A., & Terziev, V. (2020). The Shadow Economy: A Bibliometric Analysis. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(3), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.4(3).107-118.2020