Bölgesel Gelir Eşitsizliğinin Gösterişçi Tüketim Harcamaları Üzerindeki Rolü: Türkiye Örneği

Year 2020, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 27 - 40, 02.05.2020

İpek Tekin Başak Gül Akar

Abstract

Veblenci tüketim yapısının 21. yüzyılda da geçerli
olduğu söylenebilmekte, eşitsizlik artışıyla birlikte bireyler gelirlerindeki
artışla orantısız bir tüketim harcaması düzeyini sürdürebilmektedir. Benzer
şekilde Nispi Gelir Hipotezi de, bireylerin tüketim harcamalarının kendi gelir
düzeylerinin yanında içinde bulundukları sosyal statü gruplarının gelir ve
tüketim düzeylerine bağlı olduğunu kabul ederek gösterişçi tüketime işaret
etmektedir. Bu çalışmada amacımız Türkiye'de gelir eşitsizliği ve gösterişçi
tüketim arasındaki olası bağlantının yönünü iktisadi perspektiften ele
almaktır. Çalışmada Gini katsayısı ile
seçili gösterişçi tüketim harcama kalemlerinin toplam harcamalar içindeki payı
arasındaki ilişki Türkiye'de bölgesel düzeyde panel en küçük kareler
tahmincileri aracılığıyla konmaya çalışılmaktadır. Analiz kapsamında 2006-2014
periyodu esas alınmaktadır. Bulgular, eşitsizliğin gösterişçi tüketim
harcamalarını genel olarak pozitif etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Eşdeğer
hanehalkı kullanılabilir fert gelirine göre sıralı gruplardan yüksek grupta yer
alanların tüketimlerinin düşük grupların tüketim harcamaları üzerinde etkili
olduğu da elde edilen başka bir bulgudur.

Keywords

Veblen etkisi, gösterişçi tüketim, gelir eşitsizliği, panel veri, Türkiye

THE ROLE OF REGIONAL INCOME INEQUALITY IN CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION: A CASE OF TURKEY

Abstract

Veblen effect of consumption might be said to be still valid in the 21st
century and associated with an increase in inequality, individuals might try to
maintain consumption expenditures disproportionate to an increase in their
income. Similarly, Relative Income Hypothesis points to conspicuous consumption
by assuming consumption expenditures of individuals not only depending on their
own income level but also on income and consumption level of status group they
pertain to. The purpose of this study is to analyze the possible linkage
between income inequality and conspicuous consumption on economic perspective. The relationship between the share of
conspicuous consumption items in total expenditures and Gini coefficient is
investigated in Turkey by regions via panel ordinary least squares estimators.
In this context 2006-2014 annual period is considered. According to
results, the effect of inequality on conspicuous consumption is generally
positive. Another finding is that the income share of higher quintiles ordered
by equalized household disposable income has a significant effect on
conspicuous consumption of lower quintiles. 

Keywords

Veblen effect, conspicuous consumption, income inequality, panel data, Turkey

References

• Arman, C. 2013. The effect of income distribution on consumers' attitudes. Aydın Adnan Menderes University-Graduate School of Social Sciences-Department of Economics- Master’s Thesis.
• Asteriou, D. and Hall, S.G. 2011. Applied econometrics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bagwell, L.S., and Bernheim, B.D. 1996. Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous consumption. The American Review, 86(3), 349-373.
• Banerjee, A. V., Banerjee, A., and Duflo, E. 2011. Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fightcapital. The Economic Journal, 122(563), 933-956.Bertrand, M. and Morse, A. 2016. Trickle-down consumption. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(5), 863-879.
• Bilancini, E., and Boncinelli, L. 2012. Redistribution and the notion of social status. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 651-657.
• Carr, M.D. and Jayadev, A. 2015. Relative income and indebtedness: Evidence from panel data. The Review of Income and Wealth, 61(4), 759-772.
• Chai, A. and Kaus, W. 2012. Signalling to whom? Conspicuous spending and the local density of the social group income distribution. Papers on Economics and Evolution, 1218, 1-27.
• Christen, M., and Morgan, R. M. 2005. Keeping up with the Joneses: Analyzing the effect of income inequality on consumer borrowing. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 3(2), 145-173.
• Cooper, B., Garcia-Penalosa, C. and Funk, P. 2001. Status effects and negative utility growth. The Economic Journal, 111(July), 642-665.
• Eaton, B.C., and Eswaran, M. 2009. Well-being and affluence in the presence of a Veblen good. The Economic Journal, 119(539), 1088-1104.
• Frank, R.H. 1985. The demand for unobservable and other positional goods. American Economic Review, 75, 101-116.
• Frank, R.H., Levine, A.S. and Dijk, O. 2014. Expenditure Cascades. Review of Behavioral Economics, 1, 55-73.
• Harriger, J. L. 2010. Conspicuous consumption and inequality: Theory and evidence. State University of New York at Binghamton, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 3422696.
• Heffetz, O. 2011. A test of conspicuous consumption: Visibility and income elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(4), 1101-1117.
• Hopkins, E., Kornienko, T. 2004. Running to keep in the same place: consumer choice as game of status. American Economic Review, 94, 1085-1107.
• Hopkins, E., Kornienko, T. 2009. Status, affluence, and inequality: Rank-based comparison in games. Games and Economic Behavior, 67, 552-568.
• Jaikumar, S. and Sarin, A. 2015. Conspicuous consumption and income inequality in an emerging economy: Evidence from India. Marketing Letters, 26, 279-292.
• Jaikumar, S., Singh, R., and Sarin, A. 2018) ‘I show off, so I am well off’: Subjective economic well-being and conspicuous consumption in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Research, 86, 386-393.
• Kapaller, J. and Schütz, B. 2015. Conspicuous consumption, inequality and debt: The nature of consumption-driven profit-led regimes. Metroeconomica, 66(1), 51-70.
• Khamis, M., Prakash, N., and Siddique, Z. 2012. Consumption and social identity: Evidence from India. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 83(3), 353-371.
• Moav and, O., and Neeman, Z. 2012. Saving rates and poverty: The role of conspicuous consumption and human capital. The Economic Journal, 122(563), 933-956.
• Robson, A. 1992. Status, the distribution of wealth, private and social attitudes to risk. Econometrica, 60, 837-857.
• Roychowdhury, P. 2017. Visible inequality, status competition, and conspicuous consumption: evidence from rural India. Oxford Economic Papers, 69(1), 36-54.
• Tatoglu, F. Y. 2016. Panel Data Econometrics: Stata Applied. Istanbul: Beta Publishing.
• Turkish Statistical Institute-TUİK, https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/bolgeselistatistik/(Accessed: 01.03.2018-15.06.2018)
• Veblen, T. 2003. The Theory of the Leisure Class. A Penn State Electronic Classics Series Publication, Ed: J.Manis, The Pennsylvania State University.
• Wooldridge, J. M. 2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross-Section and Panel Data (2nd ed). London: The MIT Press.