Which Provides Growth in Fragile Five Countries? Export or Import: Evidence From Panel Data Test

Öz

According to economic theory, international trade has an important role in the development of national economies. This view, which became popular in the1980s, is explained theoretically within the framework of the export-based growth hypothesis. The basic of the hypotheses is based on the realization of technology transfer through international specialization and externalities. The strategy adopted by many developing countries has been tested by researchers for different countries in numerous studies. On the other hand, the results obtained from the studies show that imports are still effective on economic growth. In this study, the validity of export-led and import-led growth hypotheses is empirically investigated in Brazil, India, Turkey, Indonesia, and South Africa which are called as “Fragile five” economies between years 1971 and 2019. As a result of empirical analysis, it is seen that economic growth in fragile five economies are based on exports and imports in the short and long run. In country-based analyses, it is seen that bi-directional causality exists only in the Turkish economy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Export-led growth
• Fragile five
• Panel data

Kırılgan Beşli Ülkelerinde Büyümeyi Hangisi Sağlıyor? İhracat mı İthalat mı: Panel Veri Testlerinden Kanıtlar

Öz

İktisat teorisine göre uluslararası ticaret ulusal ekonomilerin kalkınmalarında önemli bir role sahiptir. 1980’li yıllarda popüler hale gelen bu görüş ihracata dayalı büyüme hipotezi çerçevesinde teorik olarak açıklanmaktadır. Bu hipotezin temel dayanağı ise uluslararası uzmanlaşma sayesinde teknoloji transferinin gerçekleşmesi ve dışsallıklara dayanmaktadır. Birçok gelişmekte olan ülkenin benimsediği bu strateji araştırmacılar tarafından çok sayıda çalışmada farklı ülkeler için sınanmıştır. Diğer taraftan çalışmalardan elde edilen sonuçlar ithalatın da ekonomik büyüme üzerinde hala etkin olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada kırılgan beşli ekonomileri olarak adlandırılan Brezilya, Hindistan, Endonezya, Güney Afrika ve Türkiye’de 1971-2019 döneminde ihracata ve ithalata dayalı büyüme hipotezlerinin geçerli olup olmadığı panel veri yöntemi ile araştırılmıştır. Ampirik analizler sonucunda kırılgan beşli ekonomilerinde bir bütün halinde kısa ve uzun dönemde ekonomik büyümenin ihracat ve ithalata bağlı olduğu görülmektedir. Ülke bazında ise yalnızca Türkiye ekonomisinde ekonomik büyüme ile ihracat arasında çift yönlü nedensellik olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İhracata dayalı büyüme
• Kırılgan beşli
• Panel veri

Kaynakça

1. Acet, H., Erdoğan, S., ve Köksal, M. (2016). İthalat, ihracat ve büyüme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi: Türkiye uygulaması. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16(31), 145-161. https://doi.org/10.30976/susead.302162
2. Akter, M. and Bulbul, M. N. (2017). Comparative analysis between export-led growth and import-led growth: A study on developing Eight (D-8). International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 5(4), 204-212.
3. Alam, M. I., (2003), Manufactured exports, capital good imports, and economic growth: Experience of Mexico and Brazil, International Economic Journal, 17(4): 85-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168730300080028 Barro, R.J. and Martin, X. (1995). Economic growth. New York: McGraw – Hill.
4. Batiz-Rviviera, L. and Romer, P. (1991). Economic İntegration and Endogenous Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (2), 531 – 556.
5. Breusch, T. and Pagan, A. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specification in econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud, 47(1), 239–253.
6. Dash, K. R. (2009). Revisited export – led growth hypothesis: An empirical study on India. South Asia Economic Journal, 10 (2), 305 – 324.
7. Dhawan, U. and Biswal, B. (1999). Re-examining export-led growth hypothesis: a multivariate cointegration analysis for India. Applied Economics, 31(4), 525–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368499324246
8. Din, Musleh-Ud. (2004), Exports, imports, and economic growth in South Asia: Evidence using a multivariate time-series framework, The Pakistan Development Review, 43 (2), 105-124

9. Dünya Bankası (1993). The East Asian miracle: Economic growth and public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Emirmahmutoğlu, F. and Kose, N. (2011), Testing for granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels, Economic Modelling , 28(3), 870–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.018
11. Feder, G. (1982). On export and economic growth. Journal of Development Economics, 12 (1-2), 59 – 73.
12. Gerni C., Emsan. Ö.S ve Değer, M.K. (2008), İthalata dayalı ihracat ve ekonomik büyüme: 1980-2006 Türkiye Deneyimi, 2. Ulusal İktisat Kongresi, DEÜ, İzmir
13. Grossman, G.M. ve Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Helpman, E. ve Krugman, P.R. (1985). Market Structure and Foreign Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
15. Herrerıas, M. J. ve Vicente O. (2010), Is the Export-Led Growth Hypothesis Enough to Account for China’s Growth?, China & World Economy, 18(4), 34-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-124X.2010.01203.x
16. Hye, Q. M. A. (2012). Exports, İmports And Economic Growth İn China: An Ardl Analysis. Journal Of Chinese Economic And Foreign Trade Studies, 5(1), 42–55
17. Islam, F., Hye, Q.M.A. ve Shahbaz, M. (2012). Import-Economic Growth Nexus: Ardl Approach To Cointegration. Journal Of Chinese Economic And Foreign Trade Studies, 5(3), 194–214.
18. Kurt, S. ve Terzi, H. (2007), İmalat sanayi dış ticareti verimlilik ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(1), 25-46 Koçyiğit, A., Bayat, T., Kayhan, S. and Şentürk, M. (2015). Short and long term validity of export-led growth hypothesis in Brıcs-T Countries: A frequency domain causality approach, J. Asian Dev. Stud, 4(3).
19. Kónya, L. and Singh, J.P. (2009), Causality between international trade and gross domestic product: The case of the Indian agricultural and manufacturing sectors, International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 1(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1504 / IJEBR.2009.022764
20. Kotıl, E. ve Konur, F. (2010), The relationship between growth and foreign trade inturkey: A granger causality approach (1989-2007), Middle Eastern Finance And Economics, 1(6), 32-40.
21. Krueger, A.O. (1978). Liberalization attempts and consequences. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
22. Krugman, P.R. (1984). Import protection as export promotion. in H. Kierzkowski (ed.), Monopolistic Competition in International Trade, pp. 180 – 93, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
23. Liu, M. H., Margaritis, D. ve Zhang, Y. (2019). The global financial crisis and the export-led economic growth in China. The Chinese Economy, 52(3), 232-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10971475.2018.1548144
24. Mah, Jai S. (2005). Export expansion, economic growth and causality in China, Applied Economics Letters, 12(2), 105-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350485042000314343
25. Maneschiöld, Per-Ola. (2008). A note on the export-led growth hypothesis: A time series approach, Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, 45. 293-302.
26. Medina-Smith, J. (2001). Is export led growth hypothesis valid for developing countries? A case study of Costa-Rica. Study series no:7, UNCTAED.
27. Mujahid, N., Begam, A., Shamshir, M. ve Zeb, A. (2019). Import – led growth hypothesis: A case study of Pakistan. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 10 (8), 20 – 28.
28. Pesaran, Hasem, M., (2004), General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels, Working paper No:0435, University of Cambridge.
29. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
30. Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A. and Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross section independence, The Econometrics Journal 11(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
31. 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
32. Raghutla, C. Ve Chittedi, K. R. (2020). Is there an export‐or import‐led growth in emerging countries? A case of BRICS countries. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(3), E2074. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2074
33. Rani, R. and Kumar, N. (2018). Is there an export-or import-led growth in BRICS countries? An empirical investigation. Jindal Journal of Business Research, 7(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2278682118761748
34. Shirazi N.S. ve Manap, T.A.B. (2005). Export – led growth hypothesis: Further econometric evidence rom South Asia. The Developing Economies, XLIII-4, 472 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2005.tb00955.x
35. Smith, L. V., Leybourne, S., Kim, T. H. ve Newbold, P. (2004). More powerful panel data unit root tests with an application to mean reversion in real exchange rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.723
36. Tabrızy, S.S. and Natalia T. (2010). Scope for export-led growth in a large emerging economy: Is India learning by exporting?, Kiel Institute For The World Economy Working Paper, No. 1633.
37. Tang, C.F., Lai, Y.W. and Ozturk, I. (2015). How stable is the export-led growth hypothesis? Evidence from Asia’s four little dragons? Economic Modelling, 44, 229 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.09.022
38. Yıldız, E.B. ve Berber, M. (2011). İthalata Dayalı Büyüme: 1989-2007 Türkiye Örneği, Atatürk Ü. İİBF Dergisi, 10. Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sempozyumu Özel Sayısı, 25, 165-179
39. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 69(6), 709 -748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x