Neo-Malthusyen Yaklaşım'ın Seçili Latin Amerika Ülkeleri Üzerinde Panel ARDL Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Neo-Malthusyen yaklaşım kapsamında beşeri kalkınma ve hukukun üstünlüğü gibi sosyal ve ekonomik faktörlerin doğurganlık oranı üzerindeki etkilerini analiz etmek amaçlamaktadır. Doğurganlık oranlarında meydana gelen düşüşünün ekonomik kalkınma ve kaynakların verimli kullanımı üzerindeki olumlu etkileri dikkate alındığında bu konu hem akademik literatürde hem de politik düzeyde önem taşımaktadır. Çalışmada, 1997-2021 yıllarını kapsayan dönemde 15 tane Latin Amerika ülkesine ait panel veri seti kullanılmıştır. Analizde, yatay kesit bağımlılığını ve heterojenliği dikkate alan birinci ve ikinci nesil birim kök testleri, panel eşbütünleşme testleri ve Panel ARDL yöntemleri uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, beşeri kalkınma endeksindeki %1’lik artışın doğurganlık oranını %1.05 oranında ve hukukun üstünlüğü endeksindeki %1’lik artışın ise %0.31 oranında azalttığını göstermektedir. Bunların yanı sıra hata düzeltme katsayısının negatif ve anlamlı olması değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli bir denge ilişkisinin olduğunu göstermektedir. Panel Granger nedensellik testi, beşeri kalkınma ve hukukun üstünlüğü değişkenlerinin doğurganlık oranı üzerinde anlamlı etkileri olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu sonuçlar neticesinde, eğitim ve sağlık yatırımlarının artırılmasının yanı sıra gelir dağılımındaki eşitsizliklerin azaltılması, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğinin güçlendirilmesi ve hukukun üstünlüğünün sağlanmasının, doğurganlık oranlarını düşürmede ve sürdürülebilir kalkınmayı desteklemede kritik öneme sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu tür politikalar, yalnızca doğurganlık oranlarını doğal yollarla azaltmakla kalmayıp ekonomik büyüme ve sosyal refahı artırarak sürdürülebilir kalkınmaya önemli katkılar sağlayacaktır.

Keywords

• Demografi
• Panel Veri
• Neo-Malthusyen

Analysis of the Neo-Malthusian Approach on Selected Latin American Countries Using The Panel ARDL Method

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the impact of social and economic factors, such as human development and the rule of law, on fertility rates within the framework of the Neo-Malthusian approach. Considering the positive effects of declining fertility rates on economic development and the efficient use of resources, this topic holds significant importance both in the academic literature and at the policy level. The study uses a panel dataset covering 15 Latin American countries over the period from 1997 to 2021. The analysis employs first- and second-generation unit root tests, panel cointegration tests, and the Panel ARDL method, accounting for cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity. The findings indicate that a 1% increase in the Human Development Index reduces fertility rates by 1.05%, while a 1% increase in the Rule of Law Index leads to a 0.31% reduction in fertility rates. Moreover, the negative and significant error correction term confirms the existence of a long-term equilibrium relationship among the variables. The Panel Granger causality test reveals that human development and the rule of law significantly impact fertility rates. Based on these results, increasing investments in education and healthcare, reducing income inequality, promoting gender equality, and strengthening the rule of law are critically important for lowering fertility rates and supporting sustainable development. Such policies not only naturally reduce fertility rates but also contribute significantly to economic growth and social welfare, thereby advancing sustainable development.

Keywords

• Neo-Malthusian
• Demograpy
• Panel Data

References

1. Arifin, B. (1996). Economic Analysis of Land Degradation in Indonesian Upland, Chr. Michelsen Institute Development Studies and Human Rights, 1-21.
2. Benin, S., ve Pender, J. (2002). Community Management of Grazing Lands and Impact on Environmental Degradation in the Ethiopian Highlands, International Association for the Study of Common Property Conference, 1-26.
3. Bloom, D. E. Cannig, D. ve Sevilla, J. (2003). The Demographic Dividend, RAND Corporation. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mr1274wfhf-dlpf-rf-unpf.9
4. Breusch, T., S., ve Pagan, A., R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
5. Cardenas, J. C. (1998). Malthus Revısıted: People, Populatıon And The Village Commons In Colombıa. International Institute for Environment and Development Gatekeeper Serıes No. 76, 1-18. http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep01716
6. Demaria, F., D’Alisa, G., ve Kallis, G. (2015). DEGROWTH: A Vocabulary For a New Era (E-Book). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309291920
7. Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.
8. Ehrlich, P. ve Ehrlich, A. (2004). One with Nineveh:Politics, Consumption and The Human Future. Island Press.

9. Finnin, M. S. (2016). Food Security in India, China, and the World. Institute for Defense Analyses, 1-7. http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep22859.4
10. Frey, M. (2011). Neo-Malthusianism And Development: Shifting Interpretations of a Contested Paradigm, Journal of Global History 6, 75–97. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-global-history/article/abs/neomalthusianism-and-development-shifting-interpretations-of-a-contested-paradigm/0F152BE0ECD673B452E6533517C6A70B
11. Granger, C. W. J., (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and CrossSpectral Methods, Econometrica, Vol. 37(3), 424–438.
12. Gustafsson, S. S. (1991). Half The Power, Half The Income and Half The Glory, The Use of Microeconomic Theory ın Women’s Emancipation Research. De Economist, 139, 515-529.
13. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
14. Harwood, J. J. (1975). On Monarchs, Malthus and Materials, Materials Science and Engineering, 21, 1-14.
15. Hausman. J. A. (1978). Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
16. Im, K., S., Pesaran, M., H., ve Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
17. James, K. S., (2008). Glorifying Malthus: Current Debate on ‘Demographic Dividend’ in India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol: 43, No: 25, 63-69.
18. Kopnova, E., ve Rodionova, L. (2017). An Analysis of the Economic Determinants of Food Security in North Africa, Higher School of Economics Research , No:166, 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2994682
19. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., ve Chu, C., S., J. (2002). Unit Root Tests in Pnale Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties, Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
20. Li, H., ve Zhang, J., (2007). Do High Birth Rates Hamper Economic Growth?, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol:89, No: 1 , 110-117.
21. Maddala, G., S., ve Wu, S. (1999). A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-652.
22. Malthus, T. R. (1798). An Essay On The Principle Of Population. London: J. Johnson.
23. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., ve Randers, J. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update. London: Earthscan.
24. Mellos, K. (1988). Perspectives on Ecology A Critical Essay .The MacMillan Press.
25. Mühlhoff, K., (2016). Darwin beats Malthus: Medicalization, Evolutionary Anthropology and the Demographic Transition. Europan Historical Economics Society 102, 2-39. www.ehes.org
26. Neumayer, E. (2006). An Empirical Test of a Neo-Malthusian Theory of Fertility Change, Population and Environment, 27(4), 327-336.
27. Pascual, U. ve Barbier, E., (2003). Modelling Land Degradation In Low-Input Agriculture: ‘The Population Pressure Hypothesis’ Revised. International Association of Agricultural Economists, No: 25827, 1-19.
28. Pesaran, M., H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics.265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
29. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., ve Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634. https://doi.org/10.2307/2670182
30. Pesaran, M. H., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
31. Pesaran, M., H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 435.
32. Pesaran, M., H., Ullah, A., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
33. Pesaran, M., H., ve Smith, R. (1995). Estimating Long-Run Relationships from Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 79–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01644-F
34. Spalding, H. S., (1917). Ethics and the Neo-Malthusianism, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 5, 609- 615. http://www.jstor.com/stable/2763468
35. Tsoulouhas, T., C., (1992). A New Look At Demographic and Technological Changes: England, 1550 to 1839, Explorations in Economic History, Vol: 29(2), 169-203.
36. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2024). Human Development Index (HDI). https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
37. Varities of Democracy. (2024). V-Dem Dataset (Version13). https://v-dem.net/data/the-v-dem-dataset/
38. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69, 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
39. World Bank (2025). World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/