Sources of Growth in Turkey Under Harrod-Neutral Technological Progress Identification

Year 2015, Volume: 15 Issue: 4, 495 - 508, 01.11.2015

Şenay Açıkgöz Merter Mert

Abstract

If it is assumed that the nature of technological progress as Harrod-neutral, the analysis is compatible with steady state conditions. It is for this reason that the nature of technological progress is assumed to be Harrod-neutral for the econometric studies which analyze long-run relationships. This study investigates sources of growth for the Turkish economy for the period 1970-2011 based on Harrod-neutral technological progress identification. The analysis is made using the bounds testing procedure of Pesaran, Shin and Smith (2001) and the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach of Pesaran and Shin (1999). The robustness of the test results and parameter estimates are also justified by the fully modified ordinary least squares approach of Phillips and Hansen (1990). The results imply that although productivity growth may determine rise and fall of per labor output growth, it is not the main source. Further, the results also imply that productivity growth is an endogenous variable which is determined by physical and human capital accumulation, and labor growth

Keywords

Economic growth, technological progress, the bounds testing approach, ARDL, FM-OLS

Harrod-Nötr Teknolojik Gelişme Varsayımı Altında Türkiye’de Büyümenin Kaynakları

Abstract

Teknolojik gelişmenin türü Harrod-nötr teknolojik gelişme olarak kabul edildiğinde, yapılan analiz durağan durum koşulları ile uyumlu olmaktadır. Bu nedenle, uzun dönemli ilişkileri gerektiren ekonometrik yöntemler kullanılarak yapılan çalışmalarda teknolojik gelişmenin türünün Harrod-nötr varsayılması daha uygundur. Bu çalışmada Türkiye ekonomisi için büyümenin kaynakları 1970-2011 dönemi için Harrod-nötr teknolojik gelişme varsayımı altında incelenmiştir. Söz konusu inceleme Pesaran, Shin ve Smith (2001) makalesine dayanan sınır sınaması ve Pesaran ve Shin (1999) çalışmasına dayanan otoregresif dağıtılmış gecikme modeli ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Tahmin sonuçlarının sağlamlığı ise Phillips ve Hansen (1990) makalesi ile tanımlanmış değiştirilmiş en küçük kareler yaklaşımı ile araştırılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, Türkiye’de toplam faktör verimliliği büyümesinin, emek başına hasıla büyüme oranının dalgalanmasını belirlemesi mümkün ise de büyümenin esas kaynağı olmadığını ima etmektedir. Ayrıca, çalışmanın bulguları, verimlilik büyümesinin fiziki ve beşeri sermaye birikimi ve emek arzı artışı ile belirlenen ekonomiye içsel bir unsur olduğunu da ima etmektedir

Keywords

Büyüme, teknolojik gelişme, sınır sınaması yaklaşımı, ARDL, FM-OLS

References

• Abu-Qarn Aamer S. ve Abu–Bader Suleiman (2007) “Sources of growth revisited: Evidence from selected MENA countries” World Development, 35: 752–771.
• Acikgoz, S. ve Mert, M. (2014) “Sources of Growth Revisited: The Importance of the Nature of Technological Progress” Journal of Applied Economics, 7(1): 31-62.
• Acikgoz, S. ve Mert, M. (2015) “A Short Note on the Fallacy of Identification of Technological Progress in Models of Economic Growth” Sage Open, baskıda.
• Açikgöz, Ş. ve Karpat Çatalbaş, G. (2010) “Türkiye Ekonomisinde Büyümenin Kaynakları: Parametrik Olmayan Bir Yaklaşım” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 25(2): 1-22.
• Akerlof, G. ve Nordhaus, W. D. (1967) “Balanced Growth-A Razor’s Edge?” International Economic Review, 8(3): 343-348.
• Altug, S., Filiztekin, A. ve Pamuk, Ş. (2006) “Sources of Long-Term Economic Growth for Turkey, 1880-2005” European Review of Economic History, 12,: 393–430.
• Aschauer, D. A. (1989) “Is Public Expenditure Productive” Journal of Monetary Economics, 23: 177-200.
• Barro, R.J. ve Lee J. (2013) “A new data set of educational attainment in the world,1950--‐2010”Journal of Development Economics, 104: 184-198.
• Bosworth, B., Collins S. M. ve Virmani, A. (2007) “Sources of Growth in the Indian Economy” NBER Working Paper Series, No. 12901.
• Caporale, G. Maria ve Pittis, N. (2004) “Estimator choice and Fisher’s Paradox: A Monte Carlo study” Econometric Review, 23: 25-52.
• Dickey, D. ve Fuller, W.A. (1979) “Distribution of the estimates for autoregressive time series with unit root” Journal of the American Statistical Association, June, 74(366): 427-431.
• Engle, R. F. ve Granger, C. W. J. (1987) “Cointegration and error correction representation: estimation and testing” Econometrica, 55(2): 251-276.
• Elliot, G., Rothenberg, T. J. ve Stock, J. H. (1996) “Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root” Econometrica, 64(4): 813-836.
• Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar R. ve Timmer, M. P. (2013) “The Next Generation of the Penn World Table” available for download at www.ggdc.net/pwt
• Hansen, B. E. (1992) “Tests for parameter instability in regressions with I(1) processes” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10: 321-335.
• Harrod, R. F. (1948) Towards a dynamic economics, London, Macmillan and Co.
• Hicks, J. R. (1963) The theory of wages, 2nd edition, London, Macmillan and Co.
• Inada, K. (1964) “Economic Growth under Neutral Technical Progress” Econometrica, 32 (1/2): 101-121.
• İsmihan, M. ve Metin-Özcan, K. (2006) “Türkiye Ekonomisinde Büyümenin Kaynakları: 1960-2004” İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, 21(Nisan): 74-86.
• Johansen, S. (1988) “Statistical analysis of cointegrating vectors” Journal of Economic Dynamicand Control, 12(2-3): 231-254.
• Johansen, S. ve Juselius, K. (1990) “Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with application to the demand for Money” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52(2): 169-209.
• Klenow, P. J. ve Rodríguez-Clare, A. (1997) The neoclassical revival in growth economics: Has it gone too far? NBER Macroeconomics Annual 12: 73-102.
• Lee, J. ve M. C. Strazicich (2003) “Minimum LM unit root test with two structural breaks” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 63: 1082-1089.
• Mankiw, G., Romer, D. ve Weil, D. N. (1992) “A contribution to the empirics of economic growth” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107: 407–437.
• Mirrlees, J. A. (1967) “Optimum Growth when Technology is Changing” The Review of Economic Studies, 34(1): 95-124.
• Nehru, V. ve Dhareshwar, A. (1993) “A New Database on Physical Capital Stock: Sources, Methodology and Results”, Revista Analisis de Economico, 8(1): 37-59.
• Panopoulou, E. ve Pittis, N. (2004) “A comparison of autoregressive distributed lag and dynamic OLS cointegration estimators in the case of a serially correlated cointegration error” Econometric Journal, 7: 585-617.
• Pesaran, M. H. ve Shin, Y. (1999) “An Autoregressive Distributed Lag Modeling Approach to Cointgeration Analysis”, in S. Strom (Ed.), Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century: The Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pesaran, M. H. (1997) “The role of economic theory in modelling the long run” Economic Journal, 107: 178–191.
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001) “Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16: 289–326.
• Phillips, P. C. B. ve Hansen, B. E. (1990) “Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes” Review of Economic Studies, 57: 99–125.
• Psacharopoulos, G. (1994) “Returns to investment in education: A global update” World Development, 22 (9): 1325–1343 . Solow, R. M. (1957) “Technical change and the aggregate production function” Review of Economics and Statistics, 39: 312-320.
• Uzawa, H. (1961) “Neutral inventions and the stability of growth equilibrium” Review of Economic Studies, 28: 117–124.