Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkiye’de Sektörel Katma Değerin Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkileri

Year 2021, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 1166 - 1178, 30.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.864991

Abstract

İktisat biliminin kökenleri, sınırsız ihtiyaçlar ile kıt kaynaklar arasındaki dengeye dayanmaktadır. Bu sınırlama, iktisatçıları üretim kapasitelerini nasıl arttıracaklarını ve hangi malı ne kadar üreteceklerini düşünmeye sevk etmiştir. Ekonomilerin bu tarihsel süreç içerisinde üretim kapasitelerini arttırması ve yapısal dönüşümler gerçekleştirmesi kaçınılmaz hale gelmiştir. Bu noktada, üretimde verimlilik ve katma değerin ekonomik büyümeye hangi sektörde daha fazla katkı sağladığı sorusu ortaya çıkmaktadır. Tarım, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde ekonomik büyümenin önemli bir bileşeni olup, istihdamın büyük bir kısmını oluşturmaktadır. İmalatın ise, sanayi devriminden bu yana hızlı ekonomik büyümede kilit bir rol üstlendiği görülmüştür. Diğer taraftan, 1980 sonrası serbestleşme dönemiyle birlikte imalatın üretimdeki payının azaldığı ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerde hizmetler sektörüne doğru bir eğilim olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, tarım, imalat ve hizmetler sektöründeki katma değerlerin araştırılması ve sektörel verimliliklerin ortaya konulması önem arz etmektedir. Makalenin amacı, Türkiye’de tarım, imalat ve hizmetler katma değerlerinin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkilerini ekonometrik analiz yöntemlerini kullanarak araştırmaktır. Bu amaçla, değişkenler arasındaki ilişki 1969-2019 dönemi için regresyon ve Granger nedensellik yöntemleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Regresyon analizi sonuçlarına göre, ekonomik büyümeye en fazla katkıda bulunan katma değerin 0.47 ile hizmetler sektörü olduğu görülmüştür. Ardından 0.32 ile imalat ve son olarak 0.19 ile tarım sektörü gelmiştir. Granger nedensellik testi sonuçları, ekonomik büyüme ile imalat katma değeri arasında karşılıklı bir nedensellik ilişkisi olduğunu göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, ekonomik büyümeden tarımsal katma değere doğru tek taraflı bir nedensellik olduğu görülmüştür. Analiz sonuçları, tarım ve imalat sektörü katma değerinin ekonomik büyümeyi yeterince desteklemediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda, politika yapıcıların tarım ve imalat sektöründeki katma değeri arttırmaya yönelik politikaları teşvik etmesi gerekmektedir.      

Thanks

Emekleriniz için şimdiden teşekkür ederim.

References

  • Adenomon, M. O. and Oyejola, B. A. (2013). Impact of agriculture and industrialization on GDP in Nigeria: Evidence from var and svar models. International Journal of Analysis and Applications, 1(1), pp. 40-78.
  • Arisoy I. (2008). Turkiye’de sanayi sektoru-iktisadi buyume iliskisinin Kaldor hipotezi cercevesinde test edilmesi. ZBW Working Paper, 1, pp. 1-31.
  • Basarir, A., Karli, B. and Bilgic, A. (2006). An evaluation of Turkish agricultural production performance. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 8(4), pp. 511-515.
  • Breusch, T. S. (1978). Testing for autocorrelation in dynamic linear models. Australian Economic Papers, 17, pp. 334-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8454.1978.tb00635.x
  • Breusch, T. S. and Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), pp. 1287–1294.
  • Ceylan, R. and Ozkan, B. (2013). Agricultural value added and economic growth in the European Union accession process. New Medit, 12(4), pp. 62-71.
  • Dickey, D. and Fuller, W. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49, pp. 1057-1072.
  • Gaspar, J., Gilson, P. and Simoes, M. C. N. (2015). Agriculture in Portugal: Linkages with industry and services. Faculdade de Economica da Universidaded de Coimbra, Portugal.
  • Godfrey, L. G. (1978). Testing for higher order serial correlation in regression equations when the regressors include lagged dependent variables. Econometrica, 46, pp. 1303-1310. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1913830
  • Granger, C. W. J. (1988). Causality, cointegration, and control. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, pp. 551-559.
  • Gujarati, D. N., 1999. Temel ekonometri. İstanbul: Literatur Yayınlari.
  • Imrohoroglu, A., Imrohoroglu, S. and Ungor, M. (2011). Agricultural productivity and growth in Turkey. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 18(5), pp. 998-1017.
  • Kaldor, N. (1966). Causes of the slow rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom: An Inaugural Lecture. London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kendrick, J. (1961). Productivity trends in the United States. NBER Books, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Keskingöz, H. and Dilek, S. (2016). Investigation of TR82 Region According to the Growth Stages of Rostow. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, 4(4), pp. 180-189.
  • Kubar, Y. (2016). Az gelismis ve gelismekte olan ulkelerin kalkinma gostergeleri ile ekonomik buyume arasındaki iliski: Bir panel veri analizi. Ardahan University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Science, 4, pp. 65-99.
  • Rahman, M., Rahman, S. and Wu, Hai-bing. (2011). Time series analysis of causal relationship among GDP, Agricultural, Industrial and Service Sector Growth in Bangladesh. China-USA Business Review, 10(2011), pp. 9-15.
  • Sarstedt, M. and Mooi, E. (2014). A Concise Guide to Market Research, Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-53965-7_7,
  • Shapiro, S. S., Wilk, M. B. and Chen, H. J. (1968). A comparative study of various tests for normality. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63, pp. 1343–1372.
  • Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, pp. 312–320.
  • Ugurlu, A. A. and Tuncer, I. (2017). Turkiye’de sanayi ve hizmet sektorlerinin buyume ve istihdama katilari: girdi-cikti analizi. Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 32(1), pp. 131-165.
  • Yetiz, F. and Ozden, C. (2017). Analysis of causal relationship among gdp, agricultural, industrial and services sector growth in Turkey. Omer Halisdemir Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 10(3), pp. 75-84.

The Impacts of Sectoral Value Added to Economic Growth in Turkey

Year 2021, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 1166 - 1178, 30.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.864991

Abstract

The origins of economics are based on the balance between unlimited needs and scarce resources. This constraint has prompted economists to consider how to increase their production capacity and how much they will produce which good. In this historical process, it has become inevitable for economies to increase their production capacities and to realize structural transformations. At this point, the question arises in which sector the productivity and added value in production contribute more to economic growth. Agriculture is an important component of economic growth in developing countries and constitutes a large part of employment. Manufacturing has played a key role in rapid economic growth since the industrial revolution. On the other hand, with the liberalization period after 1980, it was understood that the share of manufacturing in production decreased and there was a tendency towards the services sector in developing countries. In this context, it is important to research the added values in agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors and to reveal sectoral productivity. The aim of this paper is to research the impacts of agriculture, manufacture, and services value-added on economic growth in Turkey using econometric analysis methods. For this purpose, the relationship between variables was analyzed using regression and Granger causality methods for the period 1969-2019. According to the results of the regression analysis, it was seen that the value added that contributed the most to economic growth was the services sector with 0.47. Next, came manufacturing with 0.32 and finally the agricultural sector with a coefficient of 0.19. Granger causality test results showed that there is a mutual causality relationship between economic growth and manufacturing value added. In addition, it appeared that there is a one-sided causality from economic growth to agricultural value added. Analysis results reveal that the value added in the agriculture and manufacturing industry does not support sufficiently economic growth. In this context, it should be encouraged by policymakers to increase the added value in agriculture and manufacturing industry.          

References

  • Adenomon, M. O. and Oyejola, B. A. (2013). Impact of agriculture and industrialization on GDP in Nigeria: Evidence from var and svar models. International Journal of Analysis and Applications, 1(1), pp. 40-78.
  • Arisoy I. (2008). Turkiye’de sanayi sektoru-iktisadi buyume iliskisinin Kaldor hipotezi cercevesinde test edilmesi. ZBW Working Paper, 1, pp. 1-31.
  • Basarir, A., Karli, B. and Bilgic, A. (2006). An evaluation of Turkish agricultural production performance. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 8(4), pp. 511-515.
  • Breusch, T. S. (1978). Testing for autocorrelation in dynamic linear models. Australian Economic Papers, 17, pp. 334-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8454.1978.tb00635.x
  • Breusch, T. S. and Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), pp. 1287–1294.
  • Ceylan, R. and Ozkan, B. (2013). Agricultural value added and economic growth in the European Union accession process. New Medit, 12(4), pp. 62-71.
  • Dickey, D. and Fuller, W. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49, pp. 1057-1072.
  • Gaspar, J., Gilson, P. and Simoes, M. C. N. (2015). Agriculture in Portugal: Linkages with industry and services. Faculdade de Economica da Universidaded de Coimbra, Portugal.
  • Godfrey, L. G. (1978). Testing for higher order serial correlation in regression equations when the regressors include lagged dependent variables. Econometrica, 46, pp. 1303-1310. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1913830
  • Granger, C. W. J. (1988). Causality, cointegration, and control. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, pp. 551-559.
  • Gujarati, D. N., 1999. Temel ekonometri. İstanbul: Literatur Yayınlari.
  • Imrohoroglu, A., Imrohoroglu, S. and Ungor, M. (2011). Agricultural productivity and growth in Turkey. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 18(5), pp. 998-1017.
  • Kaldor, N. (1966). Causes of the slow rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom: An Inaugural Lecture. London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kendrick, J. (1961). Productivity trends in the United States. NBER Books, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Keskingöz, H. and Dilek, S. (2016). Investigation of TR82 Region According to the Growth Stages of Rostow. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, 4(4), pp. 180-189.
  • Kubar, Y. (2016). Az gelismis ve gelismekte olan ulkelerin kalkinma gostergeleri ile ekonomik buyume arasındaki iliski: Bir panel veri analizi. Ardahan University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Science, 4, pp. 65-99.
  • Rahman, M., Rahman, S. and Wu, Hai-bing. (2011). Time series analysis of causal relationship among GDP, Agricultural, Industrial and Service Sector Growth in Bangladesh. China-USA Business Review, 10(2011), pp. 9-15.
  • Sarstedt, M. and Mooi, E. (2014). A Concise Guide to Market Research, Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-53965-7_7,
  • Shapiro, S. S., Wilk, M. B. and Chen, H. J. (1968). A comparative study of various tests for normality. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63, pp. 1343–1372.
  • Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, pp. 312–320.
  • Ugurlu, A. A. and Tuncer, I. (2017). Turkiye’de sanayi ve hizmet sektorlerinin buyume ve istihdama katilari: girdi-cikti analizi. Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 32(1), pp. 131-165.
  • Yetiz, F. and Ozden, C. (2017). Analysis of causal relationship among gdp, agricultural, industrial and services sector growth in Turkey. Omer Halisdemir Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 10(3), pp. 75-84.
There are 22 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Economics
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Mustafa Batuhan Tufaner 0000-0003-0415-4368

Publication Date June 30, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 10 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Tufaner, M. B. (2021). The Impacts of Sectoral Value Added to Economic Growth in Turkey. İnsan Ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(2), 1166-1178. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.864991

Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY NC).