Türki Cumhuriyetlerde Telafi ve Etkinlik Hipotezi Geçerliliğinin Sınanması

Year 2021, , 1745 - 1757, 30.07.2021

Seda Bayrakdar , Semanur Soyyiğit

https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.852478

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Liberalleşme eğilimlerinin bir yansıması olan küresel sisteme entegrasyon çabalarının göstergelerinden biri ticari açıklığın derecesidir. 1991 yılından sonra bağımsızlığa kavuşan Türki Cumhuriyetlerde (Azerbaycan, Kırgızistan, Kazakistan, Türkmenistan, Tacikistan ve Özbekistan) ortaya çıkan ekonomi-politik yapı değişimlerinin ve artan küreselleşme çabalarının kamu harcamaları kanalı üzerinden kamu büyüklüğüne etkisi iktisat teorisinde etkinlik ve telafi hipotezi ile incelenmektedir. Çalışmanın odak noktası, bu ülkelerde söz konusu hipotezlerin geçerliliklerinin sınanmasıdır. Küreselleşmenin göstergelerinden biri olarak ticari açıklık ve kamu büyüklüğünün göstergesi olarak da kamu harcaması verileri kullanılmıştır. Analiz 1997-2017 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Ampirik sonuçlar Azerbaycan, Tacikistan ve Türkmenistan için etkinlik hipotezinin; Kırgızistan için ise telafi hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

Küreselleşme, Kamu harcamaları, Ticari açıklık, Etkinlik hipotezi, Telafi hipotezi

References

• Abizadeh, S. (2005). An analysis of government expenditure and trade liberalization. Applied Economics, 37, 1881–1884.
• Adam, A. ve Kammas, P. (2007) Tax policies in a globalized world: is it politics after all?. Public Choice, 133(3), 321– 41.
• Adsera`, A.ve Boix, C. (2002). Trade, democracy, and the size of the public sector: the political underpinnings of openness. International Organization, 56, 229–262.
• Alesina, A., Wacziarg, R. (1998). Openness, country size and government. Journal of Public Economics, 69 (3), 305-321.
• Alvarez, S., Pascual, M. ve Romero, D. (2003). Protección social, globalizacióny crecimiento económico,. Hacienda Pública española, Monografía, 63-77.
• Aregbeyen, O., ve Ibrahim, T. M. (2014). Trade openness-government size nexus: compensation hypothesis considered for Nigeria. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 3, 364-372.
• Aydogus, İ. ve Topcu, M. (2013). An investigation of co-integration and causality between trade openness and government size in Turkey. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 3(2), 319-323.
• Bretschger, L. ve Hettich, F. (2002). Globalisation, capital mobility and tax competition: theory and evidence for OECD countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 18(4): 695–716.
• Brooks, C. (2014). Introductory econometrics for finance (3.baskı). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
• Cameron, D. R. (1978). The expansion of the public economy: a comparative study. American Political Science Review, 72, 1243–1261.
• Cusack, T., (1997). Partisan politics and public finance: changes in public spending in the İndustrialized democracies 1955-1989. Public Choice, 91 (3-4), 375-395.
• Dreher, A., Sturm, J., ve Ursprung, H.W. (2008). The impact of globalization on the composition of government expenditures: evidence from panel data. Public Choice, 134, 263–292.
• Epifani, P. ve Gancia, G. (2009). Openness, government size and the terms of trade, Review of Economic Studies, 76(2), 629-668.
• Garrett, G. ve Mitchell, D. (2001). Globalization, government spending and taxation in the OECD. European Journal of Political Research, 39 (2), 145-177.
• Katzenstein, P. (1985). Small states in world markets. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Kim, S. Y. (2007). Openness, external risk, and volatility: implications for the compensation hypothesis. International Organization, 61, 181.
• Kittel, B. ve Winner, H. (2005). How reliable is pooled analysis in political economy? The Globalization-Welfare State Nexus Revisited. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 269–293.
• Leibrecht, M., Klien, M. ve Onaran, O. (2011). Globalization, welfare regimes and social protection expenditures in Western and Eastern European countries. Public Choice, 148, 569–594.
• Orenstein, M. ve Haas, M.R. (2005). Globalization and the future of welfare states in post-communist East-Central European countries. In Globalization and the Future of the Welfare State, Edited by: Glatzer, M. ve Rueschemeyer, D., 130–152. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Pan, C., Chang, T. ve Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2015). Military spending and economic growth in the Middle East countries: Bootstrap Panel Causality Test. Defence and Peace Economics 26(24), 443-456.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels, CWPE, 0435.
• Pesaran, M. H., (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74 (4), 967-1012.
• Pesaran, M.H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
• Petrou K. (2014). Government size and trade openness using Bayesian model average. http://www.ucy.ac.cy/econ/documents/seminarpapers/2014/Article_1_Draft_2.pdf
• Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far?. California Management Review,39(3),29-53.
• Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open economies have bigger governments?. The Journal of Political Economy, 106 (5), 997–1032.
• Ruggie, J.G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order, International Organization, 36, 379–415.
• Sáenz, E., Sabaté, M., ve Gadea, M. D. (2013). Trade openness and public expenditure. the Spanish case, 1960–2000. Public Choice, 154(3–4), 173– 195.
• Sener, S., Bayrakdar, S., ve Hacioglu, V. (2015). The analysis for the validity of compensation and efficiency hypotheses in Turkey between 1975 and 2013. World Conference on Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. İstanbul, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
• Shelton, C. A. (2007). The size and composition of government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 2230– 2260.
• Taşar, İ . (2016). Türkiye’de etkinlik ve telafi edici etki hipotezlerinin geçerliliğinin test edilmesi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 15-22 .
• Taylor, M.P. ve Sarno, L. (1998). The Behavior of Real Exchange Rates During the Post-Bretton Woods Period. Journal of International Economics, 46, 281-312.
• Tütüncü, A. ve Zengin, H . (2019). Telafi ve etkinlik hipotezlerinin MINT ülkeleri için geçerliliğinin incelenmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 81-94 . DOI: 10.18037/ausbd.550249
• Westerlund, J. (2006). Testing for panel cointegration with multiple structural breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68 (1), 101-132.
• Yay, G.G.,ve Aksoy,P. (2018). Globalisation and the welfare state. Quality and Quantity, 52(2), 1015– 1040.
• Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2013). İleri panel veri analizi Stata uygulamalı (2. Baskı), İstanbul: Beta.
• Yılmaz Şahin, B. ve Ceylan, S . (2018). Kamu büyüklüğü dışa açıklık ilişkisinin analizi: Türkiye örneği. Yönetim Ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25 (2), 501-511.