DETERMINANTS OF CROSS-REGIONAL INCOME DIFFERENTIALS: THE CASE OF TURKEY

Year 2010, Volume: 28 Issue: 2, 71 - 94, 31.12.1899

Sevinç Mıhçı Mehmet Zafer Köksal

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de bölgeler
arası büyüme oranları ve gelir farklılıklarının belirleyenlerinin
araştırılmasıdır. Bu bağlamda bölgeler arası gelir dağılımı konusuyla ilgili
sorunlar için politika önerileri getirmek bir başka diğer amaçtır. Kullanacağımız
ampirik tahmin yöntemi panel veridir. Bu amaçla Türkiye’deki illerinin
1980-2000 yılları arasındaki verileri kullanılmıştır. Türkiye bölgeleri
arasındaki gelir ve büyüme farklılıklarının temel belirleyenlerinin,
literatürde neoklasik teori, içsel büyüme teorileri ve yeni ekonomik coğrafya
teorileri tarafından savunulan olası faktörler dikkate alınarak incelenmesi
hedeflenmektedir. Değişim katsayısı hesaplamaları bölgeler arasında en çok
değişen faktörlerin, kişi başına gelir ve yatırımın yanısıra, toplam
endüstriyel çıktının üretim içindeki payı, endüstrideki istihdam ve nüfus
yoğunluğu olduğunu göstermektedir. Tahmin sonuçları bölgelerarası kişi başına
gelir farklılıklarının temel belirleyenlerinin, fiziki ve beşeri sermaye
birikimi, istihdamın endüstriyel dağılımı ve demografik değişkenler olduğuna
işaret etmiştir.

Keywords

Bölgesel büyüme, panel veri, yakınsama, içsel büyüme, yeni ekonomik coğrafya, değişim katsayısı

Bölgeler Arası Gelir Farklılıklarının Belirleyenleri: Türkiye Örneği

Abstract

The basic goal of
this study is to enquire the major determinants of income and rate-of-growth
disparities amongst Turkish regions. Accordingly, coming up with a number of
policy proposals to tackle the question of cross-regional income distribution
is modestly one of the next objectives. The method we opt for is the empirical
estimation methods for panel data. To this end, a pooled data set of Turkish
provinces for the period 1980-2000 is employed. It is objected to examine the
main causes of income and growth differential among Turkish regions especially
by taking into account the likely factors advocated in the literature by
neoclassical theory, endogenous growth theories and new economic geography
models. The coefficient of variations shows that the most varying factors
amongst regions are the relative shares in total industrial output, industrial
employment rates and demographic concentration, besides per-capita investment
and income. Estimation results indicate that differences in physical and human
capital accumulation, the industrial composition of employment and demographic
variables are amongst the basic determinants of cross-provincial per-capita
income disparity.

Keywords

Regional growth, panel data, convergence, endogenous growth, new economic geography, coefficient of variation

References

• Armstrong, H.W. (1995) “Convergence among Regions of the European Union, 1950-1990”, Papers in Regional Science, 74: 143-152.
• Armstrong, H.W. and Taylor, J. (2000) Regional Economics and Policy, (3rd edition), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Badinger, H., Müller, W. and G. Tondl (2004) “Regional Convergence in the European Union (1985-1999) A Spatial Dynamic Panel Analysis”, Regional Studies, 38, 241-253.
• Badinger, H. and G. Tondl (2005) “The Factors Behind European Regional Growth: Trade, Human Capital and Innovation”, Jahrbuch fur Regional Wissenschaft, 25, 67-89.
• Baldwin R., R. Forslid, P. Martin, G. Ottaviano, F. Robert-Nicoud (2003) Economic Geography and Public Policy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Baltagi, B.H. and N. Pinnoi (1995) ‘Public Capital Stock and State Productivity Growth: Further Evidence from an Error Components Model’, Empirical Economics, 20, 331-359.
• Barro, Robert J. and Xavier Sala-I-Martin (1991) “Convergence Across States and Regions”, Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 107-182.
• Berber, M., R. Yamak and S. Artan (2000) “Türkiye’de Yakınlaşma Hipotezinin Bölgeler Bazında Geçerliliği Üzerine Ampirik Bir Çalışma: 1975-1997”, 9. Ulusal Bölge Bilimi Kongresi-Bildiriler Kitabı, 51-59.
• Borts, G.H. and J.L. Stein (1964) Economic Growth in a Free Market, New York: New Columbia University Press.
• Bose, N., M.E. Haque and D.R. Osborn (2007) ‘Public Expenditure and Economic Growth: A Disaggregated Analysis for Developing Countries’, Manchester School, 75(5), 533-556.
• Chatterji, M. and J.H. Ll. Dewhurst (1996) “Convergence Clubs and Relative Economic Performance in Great Britain: 1977-1991”, Regional Studies, 30(1), 31-40.
• Cheshire, P. and G. Carbonaro, (1996) “Urban Economic Growth in Europe: Testing Theory and Policy Prescriptions”, Urban Studies, 33(7), 1111-1128.
• S. Deverajan, V. Swaroop and H.F. Zou (1996) “The Composition of Public Expenditure and Economic Growth”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 37, 313–334.
• Dixon, R. and A.P. Thirlwall (1975) “A Model of Regional Growth-Rate Differences on Kaldorian Lines”, Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 27(2), 201-214.
• Doğruel, F. and A.S. Doğruel (2003) “Türkiye’de Bölgesel Gelir Farklılıkları ve Büyüme” A. H. Köse, F. Şenses and Yeldan, E. (eds.), İktisat Üzerine Yazılar I: Küresel Düzen, Birikim, Devlet ve Sınıflar, Korkut Boratav’a Armağan içinde, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 287-318.
• Erk, N., S. Ateş and T. Direkçi (2000) “Convergence and Growth within GAP Region (South Eastern Anatolia Project) and Overall Turkey’s Regions”, IV. ODTU Uluslararası Ekonomi Kongresi, 13-16 Eylül 2000, Ankara.
• Evans, P. and G. Karras (1996) “Convergence Revisited”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 37, 249-265.
• Fujita, M., P. Krugman and A.J. Venables (1999) The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions and International Trade, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Fujita, M. and T. Mori (2005) “Transport Development and Evolution of Economic Geography”, Portuguese Economic Journal, 4(2), 129-156.
• Gezici, F. and G.J.D. Hewings (2004) “Regional Performance and The Economic Performance of Peripheral Areas in Turkey”, RURDS, 16(2), 113-132.
• Kaldewei, C. and U. Walz (2001) “The Determinants of Regional Growth in Europe: An Empirical Investigation of Regional Growth Models”, Working Paper, Frankfurt University, February, http://www.wiwi.uni-frankfurt.de/Professoren/walz/.
• Kaldor, N. (1970) “The Case for Regional Policies”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, November: 337-348.
• Karaca, O. (2004) “Türkiye’de Bölgeler Arası Gelir Farklılıkları: Yakınsama Var mı?”, Tartışma Metni 2004/7, Türkiye Ekonomi Kurumu, Nisan 2004, http://www.tek.org.tr.
• Karlsson, C., B. Johansson and R. Stough (2001) “Introduction: Endogenous Regional Growth and Policies”, Theories of Endogenous Regional Growth: Lessons for Regional Policies, New York: Springer Press, 1-13.
• Krugman, Paul. (1991) Geography and Trade, London: MIT Press.
• Lall, S. and K. Yilmaz (2001) “Regional Economic Convergence: Do Policy Instruments Make a Difference?”, The Annals of Regional Science, Sprinder-Verlag, 35, 153-166.
• Lucas, R.E. (1988) “On the Mechanics of Economic Development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3-42.
• Maier, G. (2001) “History, Spatial Structure, and Regional Growth: Lessons for Policy Making”, Theories of Endegenous Regional Growth: Lessons for Regional Policies, New York: Springer Press, 111-134.
• Martin, R. and P. Sunley (1996) “Paul Krugman’s Geographical Economics and Its Implications for Regional Development Theory: A Critical Assessment”, Economic Geography, 72(3), 259-292.
• Myrdal, G. (1957) Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, London: Duckworth.
• Perroux, F. (1950) “Economic Space: Theory and Application”, Journal of Economics, 64, 90-97.
• Petrakos, G. and Y. Saratsis (2000) “Regional Inequalities in Greece”, Papers in Regional Science, 79, 57-74.
• Rodriguez-Oreggia, E. (2002) “Polarization of Income under Structural Changes: Winners and Losers of Regional Growth in Mexico”, Research Papers in Environmental and Spatial Analysis, ISBN 07530.
• Romer, P.M. (1986) “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
• Romer, P.M. (1990) “Endogenous Technical Change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71-102.
• SIS (State Institute of Statistics) (1993) Ekim 1993’de Türkiye Ekonomisi İstatistik ve Yorumlar, Ankara: SIS Publiations.
• SIS (2000) Türkiye Ekonomisi İstatistik ve Yorumlar, Temmuz-Aralık 2000, Ankara: SIS Publiations.
• SIS (2003) İl Göstergeleri, 1980-2003, Ankara: SIS Publiations.
• SPO (State Planning Office) (1996) İllerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması, Ankara: SPO.
• SPO (2003a) İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelismislik Sıralaması Araştırması, Ankara: SPO.
• SPO (2003b) İller ve Bölgeler İtibariyla GSYHİH’daki Gelişmeler, Ankara: SPO.
• Solow, R.M. (1956) “A Contribution to the Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70 (February), 65-94.
• Takashi, K. (2007) “Sources of Regional Income Disparity in Rural Vietnam: Oaxaca-Blinder Decomposition” Discussion Paper No.95, Institute of Developing Studies, Japan.
• Tansel, A and N.D. Gungor (1997) “Economic Growth and Convergence: An Application to the Provinces of Turkey, 1975-1995” First Annual ERC/METU Conference on Economics, METU, Ankara, Turkey.
• Tondl, G. (1999) “What Determined the Uneven Growth of Europe’s Southern Regions? An Empirical Study with Panel Data”, IEF Working Papers/Research Institute for European Affair, No: 30.
• Trendle, B. and W. Pears (2004) “The Role of Education in Regional Income Determination: A Cross-Sectional Study of Small Areas in Queensland”, Working Paper, No 24, Department of Employment and Training, Queeensland Government.
• Trivedi, K. (2002) “Regional Convergence and Catch-up in India Between 1960 and 1992”, http//www.nuffiedld.ox.ac.uk/economics/papers/2003/W1/convergencewp1.pdf.
• Venables, A.J. (1999) “Geography and Specialisation: Industrial belts on a Circular Plain”, in R. Baldwin, et.al (ed.), Market Integration, Regionalism, and the Global Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wishlade, F. and D. Yuil (1997) “Measuring Disparities for Area Designation Purposes: Issues for European Union”, in Regional and Industrial Policy Research Paper, Number 24, Glasgow: European Policies Research Center, University of Strathclyde, UK.