The Relationship Between Technology Imports and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: Granger Panel Causality Analysis

Abstract

This research aims to answer the question of how varied amounts of technology imports effect economic growth. The study's goal is to assess the impact of 18 developing nations' low, medium, and high level technology imports on economic development from 1992 through 2021. According to the research results of the granger panel causality analysis used to determine the effect, there is a bidirectional causality relationship between medium and high level technology imports and growth, while there is a unidirectional causality relationship between low level technology imports and growth. This situation supports the existence of the Feedback Hypothesis between high and medium-level technology imports and growth, and the existence of import-led growth between low-level technology imports and growth. Furthermore, for the long-term sustainability of economic growth, medium and high-level technology should be imported every four years, and low-level replacement imports every three years.

Keywords

• Technology Imports
• Economic Growth
• Granger Panel Causality Analysis

Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Teknoloji İthalatı İle Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Granger Panel Nedensellik Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma farklı düzeylerdeki teknoloji ithalatının ekonomik büyümeyi ne ölçüde etkilediği sorusuna yanıt aramaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı 1992-2021 dönemi için yıllık verilerle gelişmekte olan 18 ülkenin düşük, orta ve yüksek düzey teknoloji ithalatının ekonomik büyüme üzerine etkisini tespit etmektir. Söz konusu etkiyi belirlemek üzere kullanılan granger panel nedensellik analizi sonuçlarına göre orta ve yüksek düzey teknoloji ithalatı ile büyüme arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi varken düşük düzey teknoloji ithalatından büyümeye doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Bu durum yüksek ve orta düzey teknoloji ithalatı ile büyüme arasında Geribesleme Hipotezinin geçerli olduğu, düşük düzey teknoloji ithalatı ile büyüme arasında ise ithalata dayalı büyümenin varlığını desteklemektedir. Ayrıca ekonomik büyümenin sürdürülebilirliği için her dört yılın sonunda orta ve yüksek düzey teknoloji ile her üç yılın sonunda düşük düzey yenileme ithalatı yapılmalıdır.

Keywords

• Teknoloji İthalatı
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Granger Panel Nedensellik Analizi

References

1. Allred, B. B. ve Park, W. G. (2007). Patent rights and innovative activity: evidence from national and firm-level data. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(6), 878-900.
2. Awokuse, T. O. (2008). Trade openness and economic growth: is growth export-led or import-led?. Applied economics, 40(2), 161-173.
3. Balasubramanyam, V. N., Salisu, M. ve Sapsford, D. (1996). Foreign direct investment and growth in EP and IS countries. The economic journal, 106(434), 92-105.
4. Baltagi, B.H., (2008). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
5. Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J. ve Lee, J. W. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth?. Journal of international Economics, 45(1), 115-135.
6. Breitung, J. (2000), The local power of some unit root tests for panel data, in: B. Baltagi (ed.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels, Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 15, JAI: Amsterdam, 161– 178.
7. Breusch, T.S., Pagan, A.R., 1980. The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev. Econom. Stud. 47, 239–253.
8. Chen, Y. ve Puttitanun, T. (2005). Intellectual property rights and innovation in developing countries. Journal of development economics, 78(2), 474-493.

9. Cortright, J. (2001). New growth theory, technology and learning: A practitioners guide, Portland, OR: Impresa.
10. Çetintaş, H. ve Barişik, S. (2009). Export, import and economic growth: The case of transition economies. Transition Studies Review, 15(4), 636-649.
11. Damijan, J. P., Kostevc, Č. ve Rojec, M. (2012). Does innovation help the good or the poor performing firms?. Economics Letters, 115(2), 190-195.
12. De Mello, L. R. (1999). Foreign direct investment-led growth: evidence from time series and panel data. Oxford economic papers, 51(1), 133-151.
13. Fantom, N. J. ve Serajuddin, U. (2016). The World Bank's classification of countries by income. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (7528).
14. Farkas, B. (2012). Absorptive capacities and the impact of FDI on economic growth.
15. Ginarte, J. C. ve Park, W. G. (1997). Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study. Research policy, 26(3), 283-301.
16. Güneylioğlu, M. (2022). The Turkey-China rapprochement in the context of the BRI: a geoeconomic perspective. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 76(5), 546-574.
17. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 3(2), 148–161
18. Hurlin, C. ve Mignon, V. (2006). une synthèse des testes de cointegration sur données de Panel. université d’Orléans.
19. International Monetary Fund. (2018). World Economic Outlook–Database–WEO oups and agegates information.
20. Islam, F., Hye, Q. M. A. ve Shahbaz, M. (2012). Import‐economic growth nexus: ARDL approach to cointegration. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies.
21. İspir, M. S., Ersoy, B. A. ve Yılmazer, M. (2009). Türkiye’nin Büyüme Dinamiğinde İhracat mı İthalat mı Daha Etkin?. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 3-16.
22. Levin, A. , C.F. Lin ve C-S.J. Chu (2002). Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics. 108(1): 1–24.
23. Nguyen, H. T. (2011). Exports, imports, FDI and economic growth. Center for Economic Analysis, Department of Economics, University of Colorado at Boulder.
24. Park, W. G. ve Ginarte, J. C. (1997). Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15(3), 51-61.
25. Pesaran, M.H., 2004. General diagnostic test for cross section dependence in panels, Working Paper, University of Cambridge & USC
26. Sattar, A., Mehmood, T., Malik, W. S. ve Subhan, Q. A. (2013). Patenting, Licensing, Trade, Foreign Direct Investment and Economic büyüme: A Panel Data Analysis of Middle and Low Income Countries.
27. Sattar, A., Mehmood, T., Malik, W. S. ve Subhan, Q. A. (2013). Patenting, Licensing, Trade, Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth: A Panel Data Analysis of Middle and Low Income Countries.
28. Shirazi, N. S. ve Manap, T. A. A. (2005). Export‐led growth hypothesis: Further econometric evidence from South Asia. The Developing Economies, 43(4), 472-488.
29. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2013). Panel veri ekonometrisi: Stata uygulamalı, Beta Yayınları 2. Baskı, İstanbul.
30. Thangavelu*, S. M. ve Rajaguru, G. (2004). Is there an export or import-led productivity growth in rapidly developing Asian countries? A multivariate VAR analysis. Applied Economics, 36(10), 1083-1093.
31. Uğur, A. (2008). Import and economic growth in Turkey: Evidence from multivariate VAR analysis. Journal of economics and Business, 11(1-2), 54-75.
32. UN Comtrade Database, https://comtradeplus.un.org/TradeFlow (Erişim Tarihi:13.98.2022).
33. UNCTAD, World Investment Report, 2022 World Investment Report | World Investment Report 2022 (unctad.org) (Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2022)
34. UNIDO (2021) Industrial Statistics Database, Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization https://www.stat.unido.org/database/INDSTAT%204%202022,%20ISIC%20Revision%203 (Erişim Tarihi: 08.08.2022)
35. World Bank (2022) World Development Indicators. Washington: The World Bank.