Validity of the Threshold Hypothesis: Panel Data Analysis for the Fragile Five

Abstract

There are many criticisms about accepting economic growth as an indicator of welfare, which is used to determine the development level of countries and evaluate their economic performance. One of these criticisms belongs to Max-Neef. Max-Neef put forward the Threshold Hypothesis to determine the relationship between growth and social welfare. Accordingly, it is argued that economic growth in a country provides an improvement in the quality of life up to a certain threshold, but after exceeding the threshold level, the increase in economic growth may have a detrimental effect on the quality of life. In this study, the validity of the Threshold Hypothesis was tested for the years 1990-2022 in Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, India and South Africa, called the Fragile Five. While the Social Progress Index (SPI) was preferred as the dependent variable in the analysis because it is more comprehensive than other development indices. GDP, GDP2 and GDP3 were used as the independent variables, thus aiming to determine the relationship between the variables. The analysis concluded that SPI and GDP increased together up to a certain level, but after a threshold, SPI decreased while GDP increased. Based on this, it has been determined that the Threshold Hypothesis is valid for the countries in question. Based on this, it has been determined that the Threshold Hypothesis is valid for the Fragile Five countries.

Keywords

• Threshold Hypothesis
• Growth
• Income Inequality
• Fragile Five
• Panel Data Analysis.

Eşik Hipotezinin Geçerliliği: Kırılgan Beşli İçin Panel Veri Analizi

Abstract

Ülkelerin gelişmişlik düzeyinin belirlenmesinde ve iktisadi performanslarının değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan iktisadi büyümenin refah göstergesi olarak kabul edilmesine yönelik pek çok eleştiri mevcuttur. Bu eleştirilerden biri Max-Neef’e aittir. Max-Neef, büyüme ve toplumsal refah arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesine yönelik olarak Eşik Hipotezini ortaya koymuştur. Buna göre bir ülkede iktisadi büyümenin belli bir eşiğe kadar yaşam kalitesinde bir iyileşme sağladığı, ancak eşik düzeyinin aşılmasından sonra iktisadi büyümedeki artışın yaşam kalitesi üzerinde bozucu etkiye sahip olabileceği ileri sürülmektedir Bu çalışmada Kırılgan Beşli olarak adlandırılan Brezilya, Türkiye, Endonezya, Hindistan ve Güney Afrika’da 1990-2022 yılları için Eşik Hipotezinin geçerliliği test edilmiştir. Analizde bağımlı değişken olarak diğer gelişmişlik endekslerine kıyasla daha kapsamlı olmasından dolayı Sosyal Gelişmişlik Endeksi (SPI) tercih edilirken, bağımsız değişken olarak GSYH, GSYH2 ve GSYH3 kullanılmış böylece değişkenler arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesi hedeflenmiştir. Yapılan analizde belli bir düzeye kadar SPI ve GSYH’nin birlikte arttığı ancak bir eşikten sonra GSYH artarken SPI’nin düştüğü sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Buradan hareketle Kırılgan Beşli ülkeleri için Eşik Hipotezinin geçerli olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Eşik Hipotezi
• Büyüme
• Gelir Eşitsizliği
• Kırılgan Beşli
• Panel Veri Analizi

References

1. Bai, J., & Ng, S. (2004). A Panic attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica, 72(4), 1127-1177.
2. Breitung, J. (2001). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (pp. 161-177). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
3. Breitung, J., & Das, S. (2005). Panel unit root tests under cross‐sectional dependence. Statistica Neerlandica, 59(4), 414-433.
4. Breuer, J. B., McNown, R., & Wallace, M. S. (2001). Misleading inferences from panel unit‐root tests with an illustration from purchasing power parity. Review of International Economics, 9(3), 482-493.
5. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
6. Cobb, C. W. & Cobb. J.B. (1994). The green national product: a proposed index of sustainable economic welfare (p. 343). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
7. Daly, H. & Cobb, J., 1989. For the common good. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
8. Difenbacher, H., 1994, The index of sustainable economic welfare: a case study of the Federal Republic of Germany. In “For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future”, Daly, H., Cobb, H.E., Cobb, J.B. Eds., Beacon Press, Boston

9. Engle, R. F. & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 55(2), 251-276.
10. Guenno, G., & Tiezzi, S. (1998). An index of sustainable economic welfare for Italy. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei: Milano, Italy.
11. Hadri, K., & Kurozumi, E. (2012). A simple panel stationarity test in the presence of serial correlation and a common factor. Economics Letters, 115(1), 31-34.
12. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
13. Jackson, T. & Stymne, S. (1996). Sustainable economic welfare in Sweden: A pilot index 1950-1992.
14. Karaş, G. (2022). Vergi yapısı ve ekonomik büyüme: G7 ülkeleri örneği. Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 8(1), 94-114.
15. Kuznets, S. (1955), Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
16. Lawn, P. A. (2003). A theoretical foundation to support the index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 105-118.
17. Lawn, P., & Clarke, M. (2010). The end of economic growth? A contracting threshold hypothesis. Ecological economics, 69(11), 2213- 2223.
18. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite -sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
19. Max-Neef, M. A. (1991). Human scale development: conception, application and further reflections. The Apex Press, New York, NY.
20. Max-Neef, M. (1995). Economic growth and quality of life: a threshold hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 15(2), 115-118.
21. Niccolucci, V., Pulselli, F. M., & Tiezzi, E. (2007). Strengthening the threshold hypothesis: economic and biophysical limits to growth.
22. OECD. (2015). How's Life? 2015 Measuring Well-being. OECD Publishing. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), (1229), 1- 40.
23. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
24. 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.
25. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
26. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
27. Pulselli, F. M., Ciampalini, F., Tiezzi, E., & Zappia, C. (2006). The index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) for a local authority: A case study in Italy. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 271-281.
28. Reese, S., & Westerlund, J. (2016). Panicca: panic on cross‐section averages. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31(6), 961-981.
29. Smith, L. V., Leybourne, S., Kim, T. H., & 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.
30. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress [online] https://ec. europa. eu/eurostat/documents/8131721/8131772. Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Commission-report (ET. 18.08.2023)
31. Stockhammer, E., Hochreiter, H., Obermayr, B., & Steiner, K. (1997). The index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) as an alternative to GDP in measuring economic welfare. The results of the Austrian (revised) ISEW calculation 1955–1992. Ecological Economics, 21(1), 19-34.
32. Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323.
33. Ji, X., Wu, G., Su, P., Luo, X., & Long, X. (2022). Does legislation improvement alleviate the decoupling between welfare and wealth in China?. Ecological Economics, 201, 107592.
34. Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Lletters, 97(3), 185-190.
35. Westerlund, J., & Hosseinkouchack, M. (2016). Modified CADF and CIPS panel unit root statistics with standard chi‐squared and normal limiting distributions. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(3), 347-364.