Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle: Evidence From Emerging Countries

Year 2020, Issue: 55, 141 - 158, 27.04.2020

Mustafa Ozan Yıldırım , Ahmet Eren Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.610470
Cited By: 3

Abstract

This paper examines the saving-investment nexus and the level of capital mobility for the BRICS and Fragile Five countries within the scope of the Feldstein-Horioka (1980) puzzle that asserts a substantial correlation between domestic investment and domestic savings in spite of the increasing capital mobility in the world. It is used the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) bounds test approach for the period 1980-2018 on a country-by-country to identify the nature of the saving retention coefficient. Findings of the paper reveal the Feldstein–Horioka (1980) puzzle holds for China, South Africa and Turkey period examined while there is not any long-run relationship between savings and investment in Brazil, India and Indonesia. Based on the saving-retention coefficients range from 0.46 to 0.74 for the four countries which there is a cointegration between saving and investment, there is moderate to low capital mobility in these countries.

Keywords

Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle BRICS Fragile Five ARDL Bounds Test.

References

  • Abdul Latif, N. W., Abdullah, Z. and Md Razdi, M. A. (2015). An autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) analysis of the nexus between savings and investment in the three Asian economies. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(3), 323-334. DOI: 10.1353/jda.2015.0154
  • Adebola, S. S. and Dahalan, J. (2012). Capital mobility: An Application of Savings-Investment Link for Tunusia. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 2(1), 1-11.
  • Ang, J. B. (2007). Are saving and investment cointegrated? The case of Malaysia (1965–2003), Applied Economics, 39:17, 2167-2174, DOI: 10.1080/00036840600722281
  • Arisoy, İ. (2013). The Analysis of Investment, Saving and Capital Fluidity in Turkey. Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 14(1), 69-80.
  • Ay, A. and Özmen, İ. (2017). Panel Data Analysis of Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis in Emerging Economies. The Journal of Social Economic Research, 17, 1-18.
  • Behera, S. R. (2015). Saving-Investment Dynamics and Capital Mobility in the BRICS, 1970-2013. Applied Econometrics and International Development, 15(1), 5-22.
  • But, B. and Morley, B. (2016). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and Capital Mobility: The Role of the Recent Financial Crisis, Economic Systems, 41(1), 139-150.
  • Chen, S-W. and Shen, C-H. (2015). Revisiting the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle with Regime Switching: New Evidence from European Countries, Economic Modelling, 49, 260-269.
  • Coakley, J., Fuertes, A. and Spagnolo, F. (2004). Is The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle History?. The Manchester School, 72(5), 569-590.
  • De Vita, G. and Abbott, A. (2002). Are Saving and Investment Cointegrated? An ARDL Bounds Testing Approach, Economics Letters. 77(2), 293-299.
  • Demir, C. and Cergibozan, R. (2017). The Validity of Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis for Turkish Economy: Cointegration and Markov Regime Switching Approach. Ege Academic Review, Ege University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 17(1), 89-104.
  • Drakos, A. A., Kouretas, G. P. and Vlamis, P. (2018). Saving, investment and capital mobility in EU member countries: a panel data analysis of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle. Applied Economics, 50(34-35), 3798-3811. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2018.1436150
  • Eratas, F., Basci Nur, H. and Özcalik, M. (2013). The Puzzle of Feldstein-Horioka Evaluation of Advanced Economies: A Panel Data Analysis. Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 3(2), 18-33.
  • Erdem, E., Koseoglu, A. and Yucel, A. G. (2016). Testing the validity of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle: New evidence from structural breaks for Turkey. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 23(2), 17-26.
  • Esen, E., Yildirim, S. and Kostakoglu, F. (2012). Testing Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis for Turkish Economy: Application of ARDL Model. Eskişhir Osmangazi University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 251-267. Feldstein, M. (1983), Domestic Saving and International Capital Movements in the Long Run and the Short Run, European Economic Review, 21(1-2), 129-151.
  • Feldstein, M. and Horioka, C. (1980). Domestic Saving and International Capital Flows. The Economic Journal, 90(358), 314-329.
  • Golub, S. (1990). International Capital Mobility: Net versus Gross Stocks and Flows, Journal of International Money and Finance, 9(4), 424-439.
  • Grullon, S. (2016). The Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis: Co-Integration and Causality Results for Selected Countries, Quarterly Journal of Business Studies, 2(3), 134-142.
  • Kaur, H. and Sarin, V. (2019). The Saving-Investment Cointegration Across East Asian Countries: Evidence from the ARDL Bound Approach. Global Business Review, 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/0972150918816149
  • Ketenci, N. (2015). Capital mobility in Russia. Russian Journal of Economics, 1, 386-403. DOI: 10.1016/j.ruje.2016.02.003
  • Ketenci, N. (2016). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and Structural Breaks: Evidence from the Largest Countries of Asia. The Journal of Applied Economic Research, 10(3), 337-354. DOI: 10.1177/0973801016645216
  • Khundrakpam, J. and Ranjan, R. (2010). Saving-investment nexus and International Capital Mobility In India: Revisiting Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis, Indian Economic Review, 45(1), 49-66.
  • Kollias, C., Mylonidis, N., and Paleologou S.M. (2008). The Feldstein-Horioka puzzle across EU members: Evidence from the ARDL bounds approach and panel data. International Review of Economics and Finance, 17, 380-387.
  • Kόnya, L. (2015). Saving and investment rates in the BRICS countries. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 24(3), 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2014.920401
  • Kumar, S., Webber, D. J. and Fargher, S. (2012). Testing the validity of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle for Australia. Applied Economics, 44(5), 599-605. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2010.511993
  • Ma, W. and Li, H. (2016). Time-varying saving-investment relationship and the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle. Economic Modelling, 53, 166-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.11.013
  • Mercan, M. (2014). The Testing Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis For EU-15 and Turkey: Structural Break Dynamic Panel Data Analysis Under Cross Section Dependency. Ege Academic Review, 14(2), 231-245.
  • Mosikari, T. J., Tsoku, J. T. and Xaba, D. L. (2017). Testing the Validity of Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle in BRICS Countries. International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation, 11(4), 1009-1013.
  • Murphy R. (1984). Capital Mobility and the Relationship between Saving and Investment Rates in OECD Countries, Journal of International Money and Finance, 3(3), 327-342.Narayan, P. K. (2005). The Saving and Investment Nexus for China: Evidence from Cointegration Tests. Applied Economics, 37: 1979-1990. Obstfeld, M. and Rogoff, K. (2000). The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is there a Common Cause?. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 15(1), 339-390.Pata, U. K. (2018). The Feldstein Horioka puzzle in E7 countries: Evidence from panel cointegration and asymmetric causality analysis. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 27(8), 968-984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2018.1480053Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches To The Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326. DOI: 10.1002/jae.616Phiri, A. (2019). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and The Global Financial Crisis: Evidence From South Africa Using Asymmetric Cointegration Analysis. International Economics, 72(2), 139-170.
  • Singh, T. (2019). Saving-investment correlations and the mobility of capital in the OECD countries: New evidence from cointegration breakdown tests. The International Trade Journal, 1-31. DOI: 10.1080/08853908.2019.1592727
  • Sinn, S. (1992). Saving-Investment Correlations and Capital Mobility: On Evidence from Annual Data, Economic Journal, 102(414), 1162-1170.
  • Telatar, E., Telatar, F. and Bolatoglu, N. (2007). A Regime Switching Approach to the Feldstein- Horioka Puzzle: Evidence from some European Countries, Journal of Policy Modeling, 29(3), 523-533.
  • Tesar, L. (1991). Savings, Investment and International Capital Flows, Journal of International Economics, 31(1-2), 55-78.
  • Tursoy, T. and Faisal, F. (2019). Validity of F-H hypothesis in small isolated island economy: an application of the combined cointegration approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 26(4), 478-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2017.1284597
  • Yalcinkaya, Ö. and Hüseyni, İ. (2016). Saving-Investment Relationship: Evaluation of The Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis in Terms of OECD Countries (1980-2013). Dokuz Eylül University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 31(1), 343-369.
  • Yildirim, D. and Koska, O. A. (2018). Puzzling out the Feldstein-Horioka Paradox for Turkey by a Time-Varying Parameter Approach. ERC Working Papers in Economics, 18/08.
  • Yildirim, D. and 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

Feldsteın-Horıoka Bulmacası: Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerden Bulgular

Year 2020, Issue: 55, 141 - 158, 27.04.2020

Mustafa Ozan Yıldırım , Ahmet Eren Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.610470
Cited By: 3

Abstract

Bu çalışma dünyadaki artan sermaye hareketliliğine rağmen yurtiçi yatırım ile yurtiçi tasarruflar arasında güçlü bir korelasyonu olduğunu ileri süren Feldstein-Horioka bulmacası kapsamında BRICS ve Kırılgan Beşli ülkelerinde tasarruf yatırım ilişkisini ve sermaye hareketliliğinin düzeyini incelemektedir. 1980-2018 dönemi için her bir ülkedeki yurtiçi tasarrufların ne kadarının yurtiçi yatırımlara dönüştüğünü gösteren tasarruf tutma katsayısını belirlemek için ARDL Sınır testi yaklaşımı kullanılmaktadır. Çalışmanın bulguları, Feldstein-Horioka bulmacasının incelenen dönem için Çin, Güney Afrika ve Türkiye’de geçerli olduğunu; buna karşın Brezilya, Hindistan ve Endonezya’da ise tasarruf ve yatırım arasında uzun dönemli bir ilişki olmadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular eşbütünleşme ilişkisi gösteren dört ülke için tasarruf tutma katsayının 0.46 ile 0.74 arasında değiştiğini göstermektedir. Bu durum, söz konusu ülkelerde orta ve düşük düzeyde bir sermaye hareketliliği olduğunu ifade etmektedir.

Keywords

Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacası BRICS Kırılgan Beşli ARDL Modeli

References

  • Abdul Latif, N. W., Abdullah, Z. and Md Razdi, M. A. (2015). An autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) analysis of the nexus between savings and investment in the three Asian economies. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(3), 323-334. DOI: 10.1353/jda.2015.0154
  • Adebola, S. S. and Dahalan, J. (2012). Capital mobility: An Application of Savings-Investment Link for Tunusia. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 2(1), 1-11.
  • Ang, J. B. (2007). Are saving and investment cointegrated? The case of Malaysia (1965–2003), Applied Economics, 39:17, 2167-2174, DOI: 10.1080/00036840600722281
  • Arisoy, İ. (2013). The Analysis of Investment, Saving and Capital Fluidity in Turkey. Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 14(1), 69-80.
  • Ay, A. and Özmen, İ. (2017). Panel Data Analysis of Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis in Emerging Economies. The Journal of Social Economic Research, 17, 1-18.
  • Behera, S. R. (2015). Saving-Investment Dynamics and Capital Mobility in the BRICS, 1970-2013. Applied Econometrics and International Development, 15(1), 5-22.
  • But, B. and Morley, B. (2016). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and Capital Mobility: The Role of the Recent Financial Crisis, Economic Systems, 41(1), 139-150.
  • Chen, S-W. and Shen, C-H. (2015). Revisiting the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle with Regime Switching: New Evidence from European Countries, Economic Modelling, 49, 260-269.
  • Coakley, J., Fuertes, A. and Spagnolo, F. (2004). Is The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle History?. The Manchester School, 72(5), 569-590.
  • De Vita, G. and Abbott, A. (2002). Are Saving and Investment Cointegrated? An ARDL Bounds Testing Approach, Economics Letters. 77(2), 293-299.
  • Demir, C. and Cergibozan, R. (2017). The Validity of Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis for Turkish Economy: Cointegration and Markov Regime Switching Approach. Ege Academic Review, Ege University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 17(1), 89-104.
  • Drakos, A. A., Kouretas, G. P. and Vlamis, P. (2018). Saving, investment and capital mobility in EU member countries: a panel data analysis of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle. Applied Economics, 50(34-35), 3798-3811. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2018.1436150
  • Eratas, F., Basci Nur, H. and Özcalik, M. (2013). The Puzzle of Feldstein-Horioka Evaluation of Advanced Economies: A Panel Data Analysis. Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 3(2), 18-33.
  • Erdem, E., Koseoglu, A. and Yucel, A. G. (2016). Testing the validity of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle: New evidence from structural breaks for Turkey. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 23(2), 17-26.
  • Esen, E., Yildirim, S. and Kostakoglu, F. (2012). Testing Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis for Turkish Economy: Application of ARDL Model. Eskişhir Osmangazi University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 251-267. Feldstein, M. (1983), Domestic Saving and International Capital Movements in the Long Run and the Short Run, European Economic Review, 21(1-2), 129-151.
  • Feldstein, M. and Horioka, C. (1980). Domestic Saving and International Capital Flows. The Economic Journal, 90(358), 314-329.
  • Golub, S. (1990). International Capital Mobility: Net versus Gross Stocks and Flows, Journal of International Money and Finance, 9(4), 424-439.
  • Grullon, S. (2016). The Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis: Co-Integration and Causality Results for Selected Countries, Quarterly Journal of Business Studies, 2(3), 134-142.
  • Kaur, H. and Sarin, V. (2019). The Saving-Investment Cointegration Across East Asian Countries: Evidence from the ARDL Bound Approach. Global Business Review, 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/0972150918816149
  • Ketenci, N. (2015). Capital mobility in Russia. Russian Journal of Economics, 1, 386-403. DOI: 10.1016/j.ruje.2016.02.003
  • Ketenci, N. (2016). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and Structural Breaks: Evidence from the Largest Countries of Asia. The Journal of Applied Economic Research, 10(3), 337-354. DOI: 10.1177/0973801016645216
  • Khundrakpam, J. and Ranjan, R. (2010). Saving-investment nexus and International Capital Mobility In India: Revisiting Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis, Indian Economic Review, 45(1), 49-66.
  • Kollias, C., Mylonidis, N., and Paleologou S.M. (2008). The Feldstein-Horioka puzzle across EU members: Evidence from the ARDL bounds approach and panel data. International Review of Economics and Finance, 17, 380-387.
  • Kόnya, L. (2015). Saving and investment rates in the BRICS countries. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 24(3), 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2014.920401
  • Kumar, S., Webber, D. J. and Fargher, S. (2012). Testing the validity of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle for Australia. Applied Economics, 44(5), 599-605. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2010.511993
  • Ma, W. and Li, H. (2016). Time-varying saving-investment relationship and the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle. Economic Modelling, 53, 166-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.11.013
  • Mercan, M. (2014). The Testing Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis For EU-15 and Turkey: Structural Break Dynamic Panel Data Analysis Under Cross Section Dependency. Ege Academic Review, 14(2), 231-245.
  • Mosikari, T. J., Tsoku, J. T. and Xaba, D. L. (2017). Testing the Validity of Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle in BRICS Countries. International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation, 11(4), 1009-1013.
  • Murphy R. (1984). Capital Mobility and the Relationship between Saving and Investment Rates in OECD Countries, Journal of International Money and Finance, 3(3), 327-342.Narayan, P. K. (2005). The Saving and Investment Nexus for China: Evidence from Cointegration Tests. Applied Economics, 37: 1979-1990. Obstfeld, M. and Rogoff, K. (2000). The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is there a Common Cause?. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 15(1), 339-390.Pata, U. K. (2018). The Feldstein Horioka puzzle in E7 countries: Evidence from panel cointegration and asymmetric causality analysis. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 27(8), 968-984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2018.1480053Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches To The Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326. DOI: 10.1002/jae.616Phiri, A. (2019). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and The Global Financial Crisis: Evidence From South Africa Using Asymmetric Cointegration Analysis. International Economics, 72(2), 139-170.
  • Singh, T. (2019). Saving-investment correlations and the mobility of capital in the OECD countries: New evidence from cointegration breakdown tests. The International Trade Journal, 1-31. DOI: 10.1080/08853908.2019.1592727
  • Sinn, S. (1992). Saving-Investment Correlations and Capital Mobility: On Evidence from Annual Data, Economic Journal, 102(414), 1162-1170.
  • Telatar, E., Telatar, F. and Bolatoglu, N. (2007). A Regime Switching Approach to the Feldstein- Horioka Puzzle: Evidence from some European Countries, Journal of Policy Modeling, 29(3), 523-533.
  • Tesar, L. (1991). Savings, Investment and International Capital Flows, Journal of International Economics, 31(1-2), 55-78.
  • Tursoy, T. and Faisal, F. (2019). Validity of F-H hypothesis in small isolated island economy: an application of the combined cointegration approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 26(4), 478-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2017.1284597
  • Yalcinkaya, Ö. and Hüseyni, İ. (2016). Saving-Investment Relationship: Evaluation of The Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis in Terms of OECD Countries (1980-2013). Dokuz Eylül University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 31(1), 343-369.
  • Yildirim, D. and Koska, O. A. (2018). Puzzling out the Feldstein-Horioka Paradox for Turkey by a Time-Varying Parameter Approach. ERC Working Papers in Economics, 18/08.
  • Yildirim, D. and 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
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Mustafa Ozan Yıldırım 0000-0001-7982-4181

Ahmet Eren Yıldırım 0000-0002-2405-3081

Publication Date April 27, 2020
Acceptance Date January 7, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Issue: 55

Cite

APA Yıldırım, M. O., & Yıldırım, A. E. (2020). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle: Evidence From Emerging Countries. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(55), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.610470

Cited By

Does regional trade integration reinforce or weaken capital mobility? New evidence from four free trade areas
Economics and Business Review
https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2023.3.795
Feldstein-Horioka Paradoksu’nun Türkiye İçin Geçerliliğinin Analizi
Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1175133
Testing the Validity of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle for G20 Countries with Panel Data Method
İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1144255
 Download Cover Image

Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines

The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.

No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.

Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.

Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.

Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.