Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Saint Louis Eşitliği Üzerine Romerian Bir Eleştiri Türkiye Örneği

Year 2020, , 175 - 187, 30.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.35343/kosbed.590298

Abstract

Saint
Louis eşitliği para politikası etkinliğinin savunusu açısından önemli bir
çalışma olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Söz konusu çalışmaya karşı getirilen
eleştirilerden biri Romer (2011) çalışmasında yer almaktadır. Söz konusu
eleştiriler En Küçük Kareler (EKK) yöntemiyle tahmin edilen modelde M2 para
arzı tanımının M1 para arzı tanımıyla değiştirilmesi, Nedensellik ilişkisinin
Granger Nedensellik Analizi ile test edilmesi ve kırılma dönemlerinin
Bai-Perron çoklu yapısal kırılma testleri kullanılarak test edilmesiyle
irdelenmiştir. Analizler yardımıyla M2 para arzı tanımından ziyade M1 para arzı
tanımının Türkiye ekonomisinin ele alınan dönemi için istatistiksel ve iktisadi
olarak daha güvenilir sonuçlar verdiği, nedenselliğin yönünün Gayri Safi
Yurtiçi Hasıla(GSYİH) değişkeninden para arzına doğru olduğu ve M1 ve M2 para
arzları ayrı ayrı dikkate alındığında sırasıyla 2 ve 1 yapısal kırılmanın
varlığı tespit edilmiştir.

References

  • Andersen, L. C., ve Jerry L. Jordan. (1968). “The Monetary Base-Explanation and Analytical Use”. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 7-11.
  • Bai, J., ve P. Perron. (1998). “Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes”. Econometrica, 66(1):47-78.
  • Bai, J., ve P. Perron. (2003a). “Computation and Analysis of Multiple Structural Change Models”. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(1):1-22.
  • Bai, J., ve P. Perron. (2003b). “Critical Values for Multiple Structural Change Tests”. The Econometrics Journal, 6(1): 72-78.
  • Belliveau S. (2011). “A St. Louis Equation to Reassess the Influence of Macroeconomic Policy Instruments”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Working Paper No. 28839
  • Batten, D. S., ve R. W. Hafer. (1983), “The Relative Impact of Monetary and Fiscal Actions on Economic Activity: A Cross-Country Comparison”. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 65(1): 5-12.
  • Batten, D. S., ve D. L. Thornton (1986). “The Monetary-Fiscal Policy Debate and the Andersen-Jordan Equation”. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 68(8): 9-17.
  • Carlson, K. M. (1978). “Does The St. Louis Equation Now Believe in Fiscal Policy?”. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 13-19.
  • Darrat, A. F. (1984). “The Dominant Influence of Fiscal Actions in Developing Countries”. Eastern Economic Journal, 10(3): 271-284.
  • Dikmen, N. (2006). “Nominal Gsuh ve Politika Tercihi: St. Louis Model Uygulaması”. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2): 87-105.
  • Friedman M, ve A. J. Schwartz. (1963). A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Miller, S. M., ve F. S. Russek. (2003), “The Relationship Between Large Fiscal Adjustments And Short-Term Output Growth Under Alternative Fiscal Policy Regimes”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 21(1): 41-58
  • Romer, D. (2011) Advanced Macroeconomics. Forth Edition. New York: McGraw
  • Silber William L. (1971). “The St. Louis Equation: ‘Democratic’ and ‘Republican’ Version and Other Experiments” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 53(4): 362-367.

A ROMERIAN CRITICISM ON THE SAINT LOUIS EQUATİON: THE CASE OF TURKEY

Year 2020, , 175 - 187, 30.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.35343/kosbed.590298

Abstract

Saint
Louis equation stands out as an important study for the defense of monetary
policy activity. One of the criticisms against this study is in Romer (2011)’s
study. These criticisms were examined by replacing M2 money supply definition
with M1 money supply definition in the model estimated by Ordinary Least
Squares (OLS) method, testing causality relationship with Granger Causality
Analysis and testing fracture periods using Bai-Perron multiple structural
fracture tests.With the help of analyzes, it is concluded that, rather than the
definition of M2 money supply, the definition of M1 money supply for Turkey's
economy period has more reliable results both statistically
and economically, the direction of causality is from the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) variable to the money supply and when M1 and M2 money supply are
considered separately, there are 2 and 1 structural breaks in the sample
period.

References

  • Andersen, L. C., ve Jerry L. Jordan. (1968). “The Monetary Base-Explanation and Analytical Use”. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 7-11.
  • Bai, J., ve P. Perron. (1998). “Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes”. Econometrica, 66(1):47-78.
  • Bai, J., ve P. Perron. (2003a). “Computation and Analysis of Multiple Structural Change Models”. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(1):1-22.
  • Bai, J., ve P. Perron. (2003b). “Critical Values for Multiple Structural Change Tests”. The Econometrics Journal, 6(1): 72-78.
  • Belliveau S. (2011). “A St. Louis Equation to Reassess the Influence of Macroeconomic Policy Instruments”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Working Paper No. 28839
  • Batten, D. S., ve R. W. Hafer. (1983), “The Relative Impact of Monetary and Fiscal Actions on Economic Activity: A Cross-Country Comparison”. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 65(1): 5-12.
  • Batten, D. S., ve D. L. Thornton (1986). “The Monetary-Fiscal Policy Debate and the Andersen-Jordan Equation”. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 68(8): 9-17.
  • Carlson, K. M. (1978). “Does The St. Louis Equation Now Believe in Fiscal Policy?”. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 13-19.
  • Darrat, A. F. (1984). “The Dominant Influence of Fiscal Actions in Developing Countries”. Eastern Economic Journal, 10(3): 271-284.
  • Dikmen, N. (2006). “Nominal Gsuh ve Politika Tercihi: St. Louis Model Uygulaması”. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2): 87-105.
  • Friedman M, ve A. J. Schwartz. (1963). A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Miller, S. M., ve F. S. Russek. (2003), “The Relationship Between Large Fiscal Adjustments And Short-Term Output Growth Under Alternative Fiscal Policy Regimes”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 21(1): 41-58
  • Romer, D. (2011) Advanced Macroeconomics. Forth Edition. New York: McGraw
  • Silber William L. (1971). “The St. Louis Equation: ‘Democratic’ and ‘Republican’ Version and Other Experiments” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 53(4): 362-367.
There are 14 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Economics
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ufuk Serdar Akalın 0000-0002-0590-8419

Cüneyt Yenal Kesbiç 0000-0001-8894-6439

Publication Date June 30, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020

Cite

APA Akalın, U. S., & Kesbiç, C. Y. (2020). Saint Louis Eşitliği Üzerine Romerian Bir Eleştiri Türkiye Örneği. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(39), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.35343/kosbed.590298

**