ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF NATURAL DISASTERS’ MACRO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS: AN ANALYSIS ON SELECTED FOUR OECD COUNTRIES

Year 2015, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 0 - 0, 29.09.2015

Ismail Sahin Omer Yavuz

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the macro-economic impacts of the disasters occurring in 4 countries which were selected as members of the OECD between 2005 and 2014. As macro-economic indicators, industrial production index, inflation and unemployment were used. In order to investigate the macro-economic impact of disasters empirically, the estimation model of each variable was found using autoregressive moving average method (ARIMA), which is the analysis of time series, and dummy variable was added to this model. In addition, Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) and Phillips Perron (PP) tests, which are used for testing the stability of the series, were employed to be able to use autoregressive models. Considering the analysis results, it has been seen that the dummy variable is statistically significant for selected countries. This indicates that these countries provide increased production by increasing public spending in the context of disaster management after the earthquake. These results are also consistent with the literature on the economic impacts of natural disasters.

Keywords

Economic growth, Macro-economy, Natural disasters, OECD, Time series analiysis

References

• • Akar, S., 2013, “The Impact of Natural Disasters on Public Finance and Macroeconmy: Turkey Case”, Journal of Management and Economic Research, 21, 185-206.
• • Aktürk İ. and M. Albeni, 2002, “Doğal Afetlerin Ekonomik Performans Üzerine Etkisi: 1999 Yılında Türkiye’de Meydana Gelen Depremler ve Etkileri”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 11-18.
• • Atlı, A., 2006, Afet Yönetimi Kapsamında Deprem Açısından Japonya Ve Türkiye Örneklerinde Kurumsal Yapılanma, Ankara: Asil Yayın.
• • Bilgili, F., 2002, “Var, Arıma, Üstsel Düzleme, Karma ve İlave-Faktör Yöntemlerinin Özel Tüketim Harcamalarına Ait Ex Post Öngörü Başarılarının Karşılaştırılması”, Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Journal, 17(1), 185-211.
• • Coppola, D. P., 2011, Introduction to International Disaster Management, (2nd ed.), Burlington: Butterworth – Heinemann.
• • Cunado, J. and S. Ferreira, 2014, “The Macroeconomic Impacts of Natural Disasters: The Case of Floods”, Land Economics, 90(1), 149-168.
• • Dickey, D. A. and W. A. Fuller, 1979, “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427–431.
• • Enders, W., 2004, Applied Econometric Time Series, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• • Ergünay, O., 2002, Afete Hazırlık Ve Afet Yönetimi, Ankara: Türkiye Kızılay Derneği Genel Müdürlüğü Afet Operasyon Merkezi.
• • Erkan, E. A., 2010, Afet Yönetiminde Risk Azaltma Ve Türkiye’de Yaşanan Sorunlar, Ankara: DPT.
• • Gujarati, N., 1995, Basic Econometrics, New York: McGraw-Hill.
• • Gündüz, İ., 2009, Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Afet Yönetimi, İstanbul: ErdemYayınları.
• • Karagöz, K., 2007, “1999 Marmara Depremlerinin Ekonomik Etkileri: Ekonometrik Bir Yaklaşım”, TMMOB Afet Sempozyumu, 5-7 Aralık, Ankara, 423-432.
• • Kim, C. K., 2010, “The Effects of Natural Disasters on Long-Run Economic Growth”, The Michigan Journal of Business, 41, 15-49.
• • Laçiner, V. and Ö. Yavuz, 2013, “Van Earthquake in Case, Post Disaster Reliefs And Their Legal Framework”, Dicle University Social Science Journal, 5, 114-135.
• • Lazzaroni, S. and P. Bergeijk, 2013, Naturel Disasters Impact, Factors of Resilience and Development: A Meta-Analysis of the Macroeconomic Literature, ISS Working Paper- General Series 554, The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies of the Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS).
• • Mackinnon, J. G., 1991, “Critical Values for Cointegrationtests” In Engle R.F. and Granger, C.W.J (Eds.), Long-Run Economic Relationships: Readings in Cointegration, Oxford University Press, 267-276.
• Kültür Yayıncılık. 442 PP CONSTANT TERM AND TREND ˗1,19﴾˗3,33**﴿ ˗3,3﴾˗3,30***﴿ 3,74﴾˗3,34*﴿ ˗1,64﴾˗2,32﴿ ˗1,31﴾˗2,29﴿ ˗0,25﴾˗2,24**﴿ ˗1,47﴾˗2,74***﴿ ˗1,62﴾˗2,73﴿ 2,96﴾˗2,41**﴿ 0,6﴾˗6,64*﴿ ˗1,13﴾˗1,85***﴿ ˗1,49﴾˗1,79﴿
• ˗1,04﴾˗2,54**﴿ ˗1,54﴾˗4,66*﴿ ˗2,02﴾˗4,31*﴿ NONE
• Canada (CA) Industrial production ˗0,38﴾˗2,33**﴿ ˗0,2﴾˗2,75*﴿ 3,59﴾˗2,26**﴿ 0,89﴾˗6,65*﴿
• ˗1,21﴾˗1,81***﴿ 2,64﴾˗4,69*﴿ İnflation
• Industrial production Unemployment İnflation
• Industrial production Unemployment 1% ˗1,11﴾˗2,59***﴿ ˗1,89﴾˗2,21﴿ ˗2,62﴾˗6,62*﴿ ˗3,64﴾˗6,58*﴿ ˗1,77﴾˗1,74﴿ ˗3,9﴾˗4,67*﴿ ˗3,61**﴾˗8,12*﴿ ˗1,94**﴾˗8,19*﴿ ˗1,45﴾˗8,02*﴿
• ˗2,62﴾˗3,25***﴿ 18,22﴾˗3,29*﴿
• ˗6,71*﴾˗8,59*﴿ 1,33﴾˗8,65*﴿ ˗1,58﴾˗5,79*﴿ ˗4,05 ˗3,45 ˗3,15 ˗2,58 3,55﴾˗8,03*﴿ Turkey 1,41﴾˗2,81*﴿ ˗0,37﴾˗2,66*﴿ ˗2,58 ˗1,94 ˗1,61 ˗0,22﴾˗3,38*﴿ ˗2,58 ˗1,94 ˗1,61 ˗3,15 10%
• Note: Values in parentheses are the values related series irrespective of trend. Because of unemployment series don’t include trend effects for Greece and Turkey, the values in
• parentheses which are related to that series are unit root test results for the first-degree difference. "*", "**" and "***" symbols respectively represent significant coefficients
• according to significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10%.