Türkiye Ekonomisi için Ekonometrik Bir Model Çalışması- Mundell-Fleming Modeli Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme

Year 2022, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 842 - 862, 28.05.2022

Leyla Baştav

https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1089671

Abstract

Ekonomik teoride Genel Denge modelinin daha güçlü teorik temellere dayandığına, Keynesyen modellerin ise özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkeler için daha anlamlı sonuçlar verdiğine ilişkin yaygın bir kanı bulunmaktadır. Mundel-Fleming Modeli (MFM) IS-LM modelinin açık ekonomiye bir uzantısı olarak 1960-70’lerde analitik düşünceyi yönlendirerek temel şablon oluşturma anlamında öne çıkmıştır. Model üzerindeki son ampirik çalışmalar istikrarlı döviz kuru, parasal bağımsızlık ile finansal serbestinin üçünün birarada sağlanamayacağına ilişkin Trilemma Hipotezi üzerinde yoğunlaşmaktadır. Dünya ülkeleri üzerinde 1820’den bu yana yapılan araştırmalar hipotezin geçerliği hakkında güçlü kanıtlar sağlamaktadır. Bundan önce Baştav (2006)’da Türkiye ekonomisi için yedi denklemden oluşan genişletilmiş MFM, Johansen koentegrasyon yöntemiyle 1990-2002 dönemi için tahmin edilmiştir. Modelde mal, para, döviz, işgücü olmak üzere dört piyasa vardır ve arz-talep denklemleri ile arz tarafında ücret endekslemesi ve fiyat belirleme denklemleri yeralmaktadır. Genişletilmiş hali ile modelde fiyat ve ücret esnekliğine izin verilmekte, faiz oranı ve döviz kuru ile birlikte toplam dört fiyat değişkeni bulunmaktadır. 

Keywords

Açık Ekonomi Makroekonomik Teori, Mundell-Fleming Modeli, Trilemma Hipotezi, Johansen Koentegrasyon Testi, Ekonometrik Modelleme

Supporting Institution

Gazi Üniversitesi

Thanks

Kırıkkale Üniversitesinden Prof Dr Harun Öztürkler'e, ekonometrik yöntemlere ilişkin değerli öneri ve yorumları için teşekkür ederim.

An Econometric Approach to the Turkish Economy -A Research in the MundellFleming Model Framework

Abstract

In economic theory there is some general belief that General Equilibrium model is based on stronger theoretical pillars, whereas Keynesian models are better in empirical predictions especially for the developing countries. The MFM has shaped analytical thinking becoming the basic template during the 1960-70s as an extension of the IS-LM analysis to the open economy. Recent research on the model highly concentrates on the Trilemma Hypothesis which suggests that it is not possible to have all three of the stable exchange rate, monetary independence and financial integration policy choices together. Studies on world economies from 1820 on provide strong evidence supporting the theory. Previously extended form of the MFM has been estimated in Baştav (2006) in seven equations by the Johansen test for 1990-2002. There are goods, money, foreign exchange, labor markets with demand-supply equations as well as wage indexation and price level specifications on the supply side. The model allows for price and wage adjustment and there are altogether four price variables with the interest and the exchange rates. Present study is an update of the model for the years 2003-2021 to test its validity for the new period. Results are quite explanatory for 1990s and 2000s in both studies with particular deviations in behavioral traits and coefficients naturally stemming from differences in policy choice during the two periods in question.

Keywords

Open Economy Macroeconomic Theory, Mundell-Fleming Model, Trilemma Hypothesis, Johansen Cointegration Test, Econometric Modeling

References

• Aizenman, J., Chinn, M. D., Ito, H. (2008). Assessing The Emerging Global Financial Architecture: Measuring The Trilemma's Configurations Over Time. National Bureau of Economic Research. (No. w14533).
• Aizenman, J., Chinn, M. D., Ito, H. (2010). The Emerging Global Financial Architecture: Tracing And Evaluating New Patterns Of The Trilemma Configuration. Journal of International Money and Finance. 29(4), 615-641.
• Aizenman, J., M.D., Chinn, Ito, H. (2013). The 'Impossible Trinity' Hypothesis in an Era of Global Imbalances: Measurement and Testing. Review of International Economics. 21(3): 447–458.
• Aizenman, J., Sengupta, R. (2011). The Financial Trilemma in China And A Comparative Analysis With India, MRPA Paper No. 34485, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.
• Akcelik, Y., Cortuk, O., Turhan, I. (2014). Mitigating Turkey’s Trilemma Tradeoffs. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade. 50(6), 102-118.
• Argy, V. (1994). International Macroeconomics: Theory and Policy. London: Routledge Press.
• Baştav, L. (2006). An Econometric Model of the Turkish Economy - A Research in the Framework of Monetary Sector and the Balance of Payments. Gazi University, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İktisat Bölümü, PhD.Thesis.
• Bozma, G., Künü, S. (2020). Turkiye’nin Ekonomi Politikasının Üclü Açmaz Bağlamında İncelenmesi. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi. 6(2), 331-341.
• Byrne, J. P., Davis, E. P. (2003). Panel Estimation Of The İmpact Of Exchange Rate Uncertainty On İnvestment İn The Major İndustrial Countries. Economics and Finance Working Papers. 03-05.
• Chinn, M. D., Ito, H. (2006). What Matters For Financial Development? Capital Controls, İnstitutions, And Interactions. Journal of Development Economics. 81(1), 163-192.
• Chinn, M. D., Ito, H. (2008). A New Measure Of Financial Openness. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. 10(3), 309-322.
• Civcir, İ. (1996). Econometric Approach to the Analyis of the Monetary Sector and Balance of Payments Analysis in Turkey. Ankara: Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu.
• Cörtük, O., Singh, N. (2011). Turkey’s Trilemma Trade-Offs: İs There A Role For Reserves? İktisat İşletme ve Finans. 28 (328) 2013 : 105-122
• Cörtük, O., Akçelik,Y., Turan, İ. (2012). Mitigating Turkey's Trilemma Tradeoffs?. MPRA Paper. No 4041.
• Fischer, S. (2001). Exchange rate regimes: Is the Bipolar View Correct?. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 15(2), 3-24.
• Fleming, J. M. (1962). Domestic Financial Policies Under Fixed And Under Floating Exchange Rates. Staff Papers, 9(3), 369-380.
• Frankel, J. A. (1999). No Single Currency Regime is Right For All Countries Or At All Times. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper. No 7338.
• Goldstein, M. (2002). Managed Floating Plus. Peterson Institute for International Economics
• Hutchison M, Sengupta R, Singh N (2012). India’s Trilemma: Financial Liberalization, Exchange Rates And Monetary Policy. The World Economy, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p. 3-18
• Ito, H., Kawai, M. (2014), Determinants of Trilemma Policy Combination. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. No 456
• Jabiyev, F., Tuncsiper, B. and Karabulut, K. (2019). Mundell-Fleming Modeli Kapsamındaki Trilemma Hipotezinin Test Edilmesi: Azerbaycan Örneği. Atatürk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 23(4), 2073-2088.
• Johansen, S., Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration- with Application to the Demand for Money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Sta tistics. 52. 169-210
• Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vec tors. Journal of Economic Dynamic and Control. 12, 231- 254
• Kar, M., Tatlısöz, F. (2008). Türkiye’de Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Hareketlerini Belirleyen Faktorlerin Ekonometrik Analizi. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Universitesi Sosyal ve EkonomiK Araştırmalar Dergisi. 8(14), 436-458.
• Klein, M.W. (2012). Capital Controls: Gates vs Walls. NBER Working Paper. No 18526.
• Klein, M.W., Shambaugh, J.C. (2015). Rounding the Corners of the Policy Trilemma: Sources of Monetary Policy Autonomy. American Economic Journal. 7(4): 33-66.
• Koç, Havva (2020). Trilemma Hipotezi: Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerine Farklı Bir Perspektif. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi. 70, 2020/2, s. 383-413
• Mishkin, F.S., Schmidt-Hebbel, K. (2007). Does Inflation Targeting Make a Difference? NBER Working Paper No 12876.
• Mundell, R. A. (1963). Capital Mobility And Stabilization Policy Under Fixed And Flexible Exchange Rates. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue Canadienne d’Economique Et De Science Politique. 29(4), 475-485.
• Obstfeld, M. (1998). The Global Capital Market: Benefactor Or Menace?. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 12(4), 9-30.
• Obstfeld,M., Shambaugh, J.C., Taylor, A.M. (2005). The Trilemma in History: Tradeoffs Among Exchange Rates, Monetary Policies, And Capital Mobility. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(3). 423-438.
• Obstfeld, M., Taylor, A. M. (1998). The Great Depression As A Watershed: İnternational Capital Mobility Over The Long Run. In The Defining Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in The Twentieth Centur. University of Chicago Pres, (pp. 353-402).
• Obstfeld, M., Taylor, A. M. (2003). Globalization and Capital Markets. NBER Working Paper. No 8846.
• Popper, H., Mandilaras A., Bird, G. (2013). Trilemma Stability and International Macroeconomic Archetypes. European Economic Review. 64: 181–193
• Steiner, A. (2015). Central Banks and Macroeconomic Policy Choices: Relaxing the Trilemma. Journal of Banking and Finance. 77(2017): 283-299.
• Tümtürk, O. (2019). Trilemma Triangle and Macroeconomic Policy Preferences in Turkey. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi. Cilt 74, No. 1, 2019, s. 283 - 306.
• Yalçıner, K., Çetinkaya, M., Çevik, Y. E. (2017). Türkiye’nin ‘De Facto’Döviz Kuru Rejiminin Belirlenmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. (37), 265-272.