BibTex RIS Cite

-

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 17 - 31, 31.12.2014

Can Tuğcu

Abstract

One of the most popular topics in the literature of macroeconomics is the Neutrality of Money Hypothesis which is defined as a permanent, unexpected change to the level of money supply has no effect on the level of real GDP in the long run. If this hypothesis holds, policy makers cannot influence real macroeconomic variables by using monetary policies. The aim of this study is to test the Neutrality of Money Hypothesis in Turkey with considering possible structural breaks. In this regard, the considered hypothesis was tested by Hatemi-J (2008) cointegration test and it is concluded that the Neutrality Hypothesis does not hold for Turkey. This result implies that, policy makers can use money supply as an effective monetary policy instrument in order to affect the real macroeconomic variables

Keywords

The Neutraliy of Money Hypothesis The Turkish Economy Cointegration

References

  • ABAAN, E. D., (1987), “Parasal Şok ve Reel Ekonomik Etkinlik,” ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 14 (3), s. 271-282.
  • ASLAN, Ö. ve KORAP, L., (2007), “Testing Quantity Theory of Money for the Turkish
  • Economy,” BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 1 (2), s. 93-109. BAE, S. K. ve JENSEN, M. J. ve MURDOCK, S. G., (2005), “Long-run Neutrality in a
  • Fractionally Integrated Model,” Journal of Macroeconomics, 27 (2), s. 257-274. BARRO, R. J., (1977), “Unanticipated Money Growth and Unemployment in the United
  • States,” American Economic Review, 67 (2), s. 101-115. BELADİ, H. ve SAMANTA, S. K., (1988), “Unanticipated Monetary Policy and Real
  • Output: Some Evidence from the U.K. Economy,” Applied Economics, 20, s. 721-729. BOHARA, A. K., (1991), “Testing the Rational-Expectations Hypothesis: Further
  • Evidence,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 9 (3), s. 337-340. BULLARD, J. B., (1999), “Testing Long-run Monetary Neutrality Propositions: Lessons from the Recent Research,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 81, s. 57-77.
  • CHEN, S., (2007), “Evidence of the Long-Run Neutrality of Money: The Case of South
  • Korea and Taiwan,” Economics Bulletin, 3 (64), s. 1-18. CUÑADO, J. ve GİL-ALANA, L. A. ve PÉREZ DE GRACıA, F., (2009), “New Evidence on Long-run Monetary Neutrality,” Journal of Applied Economics, 12, s. 229-248.
  • EVANS, P., (1996), “Growth and the Neutrality of Money,” Empirical Economics, 21 (1), s. 187-202.
  • FISHER, M. E. ve SEATER, J. J., (1993) “Long-run Neutrality and Superneutrality in an
  • ARIMA Framework,” American Economic Review, 83, s. 402-415. FUNG, B. S. ve KASUMOVICH, M., (1998) “Monetary Shocks in the G-6 Countries: Is
  • There A Puzzle?,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 42, s. 575-592. GREGORY, A. W. ve HANSEN, B. E., (1996), “Residual-based Tests for Cointegration
  • In Models with Regime Shifts,” Journal of Econometrics, 70, s. 99–126 HATEMİ-J, A., (2008), Tests for Cointegration with Two Unknown Regime Shifts: With
  • An Application to Financial Market Integration,” Empirical Economics, 35, s. 497-505. JHA, R. ve DONDE, K., (2001), “The Real Effects of Anticipated and Unanticipated
  • Money: A Test of the Barro Proposition in the Indian Context,” Indian Economic Journal, 49 (1), s. 21-30. KHATRI-CHETTRI, J. ve AMPON, K. ve MYLES, W., (1990), “Anticipated and Unanticipated Money in Thailand,” The American Economist, 34, s. 83-87.
  • KING, R. G. ve WATSON, M. W., (1992), “Testing Long-Run Neutrality,” NBER Working Paper No. 4165.
  • KING, R. G. ve WATSON, M. W., (1997), “Testing Long-run Neutrality,” Economic
  • Quarterly of Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 83, s. 69-101. LEE, J. ve STRAZICICH, M. C., (2003), “Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85 (2), s. 1082-1089.
  • LEE, Y. G. ve ZILBERFARB, B. Z., (1993), “Unanticipated Money, Output,
  • Employment and Prices in a Developing Economy: The Korean Case,” International Economic Journal, 7 (2), s. 15-26. LUMSDAINE, R. ve PAPELL, D., (1997), “Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit-Root
  • Hypothesis,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 79 (2), s. 212-218. MCGEE, R. ve STASIAK, R., (1985), “Does Anticipated Monetary Policy Matter?
  • Another Look,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 17, s. 16-27. MISHKIN, F. S., (1982), “Does Anticipated Monetary Policy Matter? An Econometric
  • Investigation,” Journal of Political Economy, 90 (1), s. 22-51. MOOSA, I. A., (1997), “Testing the Long-run Neutrality of Money in a Developing
  • Economy: The Case of India,” Journal of Development Economics, 53 (1), s. 139-155. NORIEGA, A. E., (2004), “Long-run Monetary Neutrality and the Unit-root Hypothesis:
  • Further International Evidence,” The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 15 (2), s. 179-197. OLEKALNS, N., (1996), “Some Further Evidence on the Long-run Neutrality of
  • Money,” Economics Letters, 50, s. 393-398. PHILLIPS, P. C. B., (1987), “Time Series Regression with A Unit Root,” Econometrica, 55, s. 277–301
  • RAHMAN, J. ve TOYODA, T., (2008), “An Empirical Study on Long-Run Neutrality of
  • Money in the Japanese Economy,” Japanese Economy, 35 (3), s. 87-117. SAATÇİOĞLU, C. ve KORAP, L., (2009), “The Search for Co-integration between
  • Money, Prices and Income: Low Frequency Evidence from the Turkish Economy,” MPRA Paper No. 19557.
  • SERLETIS, A. ve KOUSTAS, Z., (1998), “International Evidence on the Neutrality of
  • Money,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 30 (1), s. 1-25. SMITH, J. ve MCALEER, M., (1993), “On the Robustness of Barro's New Classical
  • Unemployment Model,” Applied Economics, 25, s. 349-360. WESTERLUND, J. ve COSTANTINI, M., (2009), “Panel Cointegration and the Neutrality of Money,” Empirical Economics, 36 (1), s. 1-26.
  • YAMAK, R. ve CEYLAN, S., (1997), “Politika Etkisizliği Hipotezinin Sektörel Analizi:
  • Türkiye Örneği,” Erişim tarihi: 17 Mart 2012, http://idari.cu.edu.tr/sempozyum/bil45.htm
  • YAMAK, R. ve KÜÇÜKKALE, Y., (1998), “Anticipated versus Unanticipated Money in
  • Turkey,” Yapi Kredi Economic Review, 9 (1), s. 15-25.

PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 17 - 31, 31.12.2014

Can Tuğcu

Abstract

Makroekonomik literatür içerisindeki en popüler konulardan biri, para arzında meydana gelen
beklenmeyen sürekli bir değişikliğin, uzun dönemde reel GSYH üzerinde herhangi bir etki
yaratmayacağı şeklinde tanımlanan Paranın Yansızlığı Hipotezi’dir. Eğer bu hipotez geçerli ise
politika yapıcıların para politikalarını kullanarak reel makroekonomik değişkenleri etkileme gücü
ortadan kalkar. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Paranın Yansızlığı Hipotezi’nin Türkiye’de olası yapısal
kırılmaları da göz önünde bulundurarak test edilmesidir. Bu doğrultuda, söz konusu hipotez Hatemi-J
(2008) eşbütünleşme testi ile sınanmış ve Yansızlık Hipotezinin Türkiye’de geçerli olmadığı sonucuna
ulaşılmıştır. Bu sonuca göre politika yapıcılar para arzını, reel makroekonomik değişkenleri etkilemek
amacıyla, etkin bir para politikası aracı olarak kullanabilirler.

Keywords

Paranın Yansızlığı Hipotezi Türkiye Ekonomisi Eşbütünleşme Yapısal Kırılma.

References

  • ABAAN, E. D., (1987), “Parasal Şok ve Reel Ekonomik Etkinlik,” ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 14 (3), s. 271-282.
  • ASLAN, Ö. ve KORAP, L., (2007), “Testing Quantity Theory of Money for the Turkish
  • Economy,” BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 1 (2), s. 93-109. BAE, S. K. ve JENSEN, M. J. ve MURDOCK, S. G., (2005), “Long-run Neutrality in a
  • Fractionally Integrated Model,” Journal of Macroeconomics, 27 (2), s. 257-274. BARRO, R. J., (1977), “Unanticipated Money Growth and Unemployment in the United
  • States,” American Economic Review, 67 (2), s. 101-115. BELADİ, H. ve SAMANTA, S. K., (1988), “Unanticipated Monetary Policy and Real
  • Output: Some Evidence from the U.K. Economy,” Applied Economics, 20, s. 721-729. BOHARA, A. K., (1991), “Testing the Rational-Expectations Hypothesis: Further
  • Evidence,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 9 (3), s. 337-340. BULLARD, J. B., (1999), “Testing Long-run Monetary Neutrality Propositions: Lessons from the Recent Research,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 81, s. 57-77.
  • CHEN, S., (2007), “Evidence of the Long-Run Neutrality of Money: The Case of South
  • Korea and Taiwan,” Economics Bulletin, 3 (64), s. 1-18. CUÑADO, J. ve GİL-ALANA, L. A. ve PÉREZ DE GRACıA, F., (2009), “New Evidence on Long-run Monetary Neutrality,” Journal of Applied Economics, 12, s. 229-248.
  • EVANS, P., (1996), “Growth and the Neutrality of Money,” Empirical Economics, 21 (1), s. 187-202.
  • FISHER, M. E. ve SEATER, J. J., (1993) “Long-run Neutrality and Superneutrality in an
  • ARIMA Framework,” American Economic Review, 83, s. 402-415. FUNG, B. S. ve KASUMOVICH, M., (1998) “Monetary Shocks in the G-6 Countries: Is
  • There A Puzzle?,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 42, s. 575-592. GREGORY, A. W. ve HANSEN, B. E., (1996), “Residual-based Tests for Cointegration
  • In Models with Regime Shifts,” Journal of Econometrics, 70, s. 99–126 HATEMİ-J, A., (2008), Tests for Cointegration with Two Unknown Regime Shifts: With
  • An Application to Financial Market Integration,” Empirical Economics, 35, s. 497-505. JHA, R. ve DONDE, K., (2001), “The Real Effects of Anticipated and Unanticipated
  • Money: A Test of the Barro Proposition in the Indian Context,” Indian Economic Journal, 49 (1), s. 21-30. KHATRI-CHETTRI, J. ve AMPON, K. ve MYLES, W., (1990), “Anticipated and Unanticipated Money in Thailand,” The American Economist, 34, s. 83-87.
  • KING, R. G. ve WATSON, M. W., (1992), “Testing Long-Run Neutrality,” NBER Working Paper No. 4165.
  • KING, R. G. ve WATSON, M. W., (1997), “Testing Long-run Neutrality,” Economic
  • Quarterly of Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 83, s. 69-101. LEE, J. ve STRAZICICH, M. C., (2003), “Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85 (2), s. 1082-1089.
  • LEE, Y. G. ve ZILBERFARB, B. Z., (1993), “Unanticipated Money, Output,
  • Employment and Prices in a Developing Economy: The Korean Case,” International Economic Journal, 7 (2), s. 15-26. LUMSDAINE, R. ve PAPELL, D., (1997), “Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit-Root
  • Hypothesis,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 79 (2), s. 212-218. MCGEE, R. ve STASIAK, R., (1985), “Does Anticipated Monetary Policy Matter?
  • Another Look,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 17, s. 16-27. MISHKIN, F. S., (1982), “Does Anticipated Monetary Policy Matter? An Econometric
  • Investigation,” Journal of Political Economy, 90 (1), s. 22-51. MOOSA, I. A., (1997), “Testing the Long-run Neutrality of Money in a Developing
  • Economy: The Case of India,” Journal of Development Economics, 53 (1), s. 139-155. NORIEGA, A. E., (2004), “Long-run Monetary Neutrality and the Unit-root Hypothesis:
  • Further International Evidence,” The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 15 (2), s. 179-197. OLEKALNS, N., (1996), “Some Further Evidence on the Long-run Neutrality of
  • Money,” Economics Letters, 50, s. 393-398. PHILLIPS, P. C. B., (1987), “Time Series Regression with A Unit Root,” Econometrica, 55, s. 277–301
  • RAHMAN, J. ve TOYODA, T., (2008), “An Empirical Study on Long-Run Neutrality of
  • Money in the Japanese Economy,” Japanese Economy, 35 (3), s. 87-117. SAATÇİOĞLU, C. ve KORAP, L., (2009), “The Search for Co-integration between
  • Money, Prices and Income: Low Frequency Evidence from the Turkish Economy,” MPRA Paper No. 19557.
  • SERLETIS, A. ve KOUSTAS, Z., (1998), “International Evidence on the Neutrality of
  • Money,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 30 (1), s. 1-25. SMITH, J. ve MCALEER, M., (1993), “On the Robustness of Barro's New Classical
  • Unemployment Model,” Applied Economics, 25, s. 349-360. WESTERLUND, J. ve COSTANTINI, M., (2009), “Panel Cointegration and the Neutrality of Money,” Empirical Economics, 36 (1), s. 1-26.
  • YAMAK, R. ve CEYLAN, S., (1997), “Politika Etkisizliği Hipotezinin Sektörel Analizi:
  • Türkiye Örneği,” Erişim tarihi: 17 Mart 2012, http://idari.cu.edu.tr/sempozyum/bil45.htm
  • YAMAK, R. ve KÜÇÜKKALE, Y., (1998), “Anticipated versus Unanticipated Money in
  • Turkey,” Yapi Kredi Economic Review, 9 (1), s. 15-25.
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Can Tuğcu

Publication Date December 31, 2014
Submission Date January 8, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 2 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Tuğcu, C. (2014). PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 2(1), 17-31.
AMA Tuğcu C. PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ. JEPR. December 2014;2(1):17-31.
Chicago Tuğcu, Can. “PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ”. Journal of Economic Policy Researches 2, no. 1 (December 2014): 17-31.
EndNote Tuğcu C (December 1, 2014) PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ. Journal of Economic Policy Researches 2 1 17–31.
IEEE C. Tuğcu, “PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ”, JEPR, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 2014.
ISNAD Tuğcu, Can. “PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ”. Journal of Economic Policy Researches 2/1 (December 2014), 17-31.
JAMA Tuğcu C. PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ. JEPR. 2014;2:17–31.
MLA Tuğcu, Can. “PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ”. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, vol. 2, no. 1, 2014, pp. 17-31.
Vancouver Tuğcu C. PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ. JEPR. 2014;2(1):17-31.