MENA Ülkelerinde Ticari Dışa Açıklık Ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Bootstrap Panel Granger Nedensellik Analizi

Year 2019, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 289 - 301, 31.12.2019

Merve Kocaman

https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.643015

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmada ticari dışa açıklık ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki nedensellik
ilişkisi, 10 MENA ülkesine ait 1976-2017 yıllarını kapsayan verilerle analiz
edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Nedensellik ilişkisini test edebilmek için, yatay kesit
bağımlılığı ve eğim heterojenliği konularını dikkate alan, Konya (2006)
tarafından geliştirilmiş olan bootstrap granger nedensellik testi uygulanmıştır.
Bu bağlamda, öncelikle yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve eğim homojenliği testleri
yapılmış, kesitler arası bağımlılık olduğu ve eğimin heterojen olduğu görüldükten
sonra bootstrap nedensellik testi uygulanmıştır. Tahmin sonuçları ele alınan
ülkelerde ticari dışa açıklık ve ekonomik büyüme arasında güçlü bir nedensellik
ilişkisi olmadığını göstermektedir. Sadece Mısır ve Ürdün’de ticari dışa
açıklıktan ekonomik büyümeye pozitif nedensellik olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Öte yandan, büyümeden ticari dışa açıklığa nedensellik ilişkisi ise Suudi
Arabistan ve İsrail için tespit edilmiştir. Nedenselliğin işareti Suudi
Arabistan için pozitif iken, İsrail için negatiftir. Elde edilen bulgulara
göre; ticari dışa açıklık ya da ticari liberalizasyonun ele alınan ülkelerin
çoğunun ekonomik büyümesi üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi yoktur.

Keywords

Ticari Dışa Açıklık, Ekonomik Büyüme, Panel Veri Analizi

Trade Openness and Economic Growth in MENA Countries: A Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Analysis

Abstract

This
study examines the causal relationship between trade opennes and  economic growth for 10 MENA countries by
using panel data framework over the period of 1976 and 2017. To see the
causality relationship bootstrap granger causality approach applied that
considers the both cross-sectional dependency and slope heterogeneity issues
among countries. In this context, firstly the cross-sectional dependency and
slope homogeneity tests were conducted, after seeing the cross-sectional dependency
and the slope hetereogeneity, the bootstrap causality test was applied.
Obtained results do not exhibit strong causal relationship between economic
growth and trade openness for the sample countries. There is positive causality
from trade openness to growth only for Eagypt and Jordan. On the other hand,
growth do cause trade openness only for Saudi Arabia and Israel. While sign of
the causality is positive for Saudi Arabia, it is negative for Israel. Results
imply that trade openness or trade liberalization do not have a significant
effect on economic growth for the sample countries.

Keywords

Trade Openness, Economic Growth, Panel Data Analysis

References

• 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.
• Ben-David, D., ve Loewy, M. B. (1998). Free trade, growth, and convergence, Journal of economic growth, 3(2), 143-170.
• Ben-David, D., & Loewy, M. B. (2000). Knowledge dissemination, capital accumulation, trade, and endogenous growth, Oxford Economic Papers, 52(4), 637-650.
• Ben-David, D., & Loewy, M. B. (2003). Trade and the neoclassical growth model. Journal of economic integration, 1-16.
• Breusch, T., Pagan, A., (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud. 47 (1), 239–253.
• Chang, R., Kaltani, L., ve Loayza, N. V. (2009). Openness can be good for growth: The role of policy complementarities, Journal of development economics, 90(1), 33-49.
• Dollar, D. (1992). Outward-oriented developing economies really do grow more rapidly: evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976-1985, Economic development and cultural change, 40(3), 523-544.
• Edwards, S. (1998). Openness, productivity and growth: what do we really know?, The economic journal, 108(447), 383-398.
• Gries, T., ve Redlin, M. (2012). Trade openness and economic growth: a panel causality analysis. In International conferences of RCIE, KIET, and APEA, March (pp. 16-18).
• Harrison, A. (1996). Openness and growth: A time-series, cross-country analysis for developing countries, Journal of development Economics, 48(2), 419-447.
• Levine, R., ve Renelt, D. (1992). A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions. The American economic review, 942-963.
• Liu X., Song, H. ve Romilly, P. (1997). An empirical investigation of the causal relationship between openness and economic growth in China. Applied Economics, 29, 1679-1686.
• Kim, D. H., ve Lin, S. C. (2009). Trade and growth at different stages of economic development, Journal of Development Studies, 45(8), 1211-1224.
• Kónya, L. (2006). Exports and Growth: Granger Causality Analysis on OECD Countries with a Panel Data Approach, Economic Modelling, (23), 978-992.
• Olabisi, O. E., ve Lau, E. (2018). Causality Testing between Trade Openness, Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth: Fresh Evidence from Sub-Saharan African Countries. Economia Internazionale/International Economics, 71(4), 437-464.
• Pesaran, M.H., (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper 1229. IZA Discussion Paper, 1240.
• Pesaran, M.H., (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panel with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74 (4), 967–1012.
• Pesaran, M. H., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
• Prebisch, R. (1950). The economic development of Latin American and its principal problems. (Lake Success, NY: United Nations, Department of Economic Affairs), Reprinted in Economic Bulletin for Latin America, 7(1962), 1-22.
• Rassekh, F. (2007). Is international trade more beneficial to lower income economies? An empirical inquiry, Review of Development Economics, 11(1), 159-169.
• Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation: London.
• Sachs, J. D., Warner, A., Åslund, A., ve Fischer, S. (1995). Economic reform and the process of global integration, Brookings papers on economic activity, 1995(1), 1-118.
• Saçık, S. Y. (2009). Dış Ticaret Politikası ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal Ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2009(1), 162-171.
• Sandalcılar, A. R., ve Yalman, İ. N. (2012). Türkiye’de dış ticaretteki serbestleşmenin işgücü piyasaları üzerindeki etkileri, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 49-65.
• Seyidoğlu, H. (2015). Uluslararası İktisat, İstanbul: Güzem Can Yayınları.
• Singer, H. W. (1950). American economic association the distribution of gains between investing and borrowing countries, The American Economic Review, 40(2), 473-485.
• Swamy, P.A.V.B., (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model, Econometrica, 38 (2), 311–323.
• Ulaşan, B., (2015). Trade openness and economic growth: panel evidence, Appl. Econ. Lett. 22 (2), 163–167.
• Ümit, A. Ö. (2016). Türkiye’de Ticari Açıklık, Finansal Açıklık ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkiler: Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı, Niğde Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 255-272.
• Trejos, S., Barboza, B., (2015). Dynamic estimation of the relationship between trade openness and output growth in Asia, J. Asian Econ. 36 (2015), 110–125.
• Yanikkaya, H. (2003). Trade openness and economic growth: a cross-country empirical investigation, Journal of Development economics, 72(1), 57-89.
• 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.
• Zeren, F., Ari, A., (2013). Trade openness and economic growth: a panel causality test, Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 4, 317–324.