İHRACATA DAYALI BÜYÜME HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE VE YENİ GELİŞEN EKONOMİLERİN ÜZERİNE KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR İNCELEME

Abstract

Bir ülkenin ihracatı ve milli gelir düzeyi arasındaki ilişki, gerek ticaret gerekse büyüme teorilerinin uzun süredir tartışılan bir konusudur. İhracat ve milli gelir arasındaki bir nedensellik ilişkisi dışa açık politikaları içe dönük politikalara kıyasla daha üstün bir konuma getireceğinden, ‘serbest ticaret’ (ihracata dayalı büyüme) ya da ‘korumacılık’ (ithal ikamesi) tezlerini savunmada bu tartışma büyük önem taşır. İhracata dayalı büyüme hipotezini test etmek amacıyla, bu çalışmada Türkiye ve yedi yeni gelişen ülke için dış ticaretle (ihracat ve ithalat) milli gelir arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi Granger nedensellik analizi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, incelenen sekiz ülkeden Arjantin, Brezilya ve Hindistan için test edilen hipotez desteklenmezken, Türkiye, Çek Cumhuriyeti, Macaristan, Polonya ve Çin örneklerinde ihracatla milli gelir arasında güçlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi olduğunu göstermektedir

Keywords

• İhracata dayalı büyüme, ithal ikamesi, Granger nedensellik analizi

TEST OF EXPORT LED GROWTH HYPOTHESIS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON TURKEY AND NEWLY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Abstract

The relation between exports and national income of a country has long been a frequently debated issue in both trade and growth theory. This issue is particularly important in providing arguments for ‘free trade’ (export-led growth) or ‘protectionism’ (import substitution) as presence of any causality between exports and income would imply supremacy of outward looking policies over inward looking policies. In order to test the export-led growth hypothesis, this work examines the relation between trade (exports and imports) and income for Turkey and seven newly developing countries using Granger causality analysis. Our results suggest that the export-led growth hypothesis is not supported only in cases of Argentina, and Brazil while there is a strong causality running from exports to growth for Turkey, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, India and China

Keywords

• Export-led growth, import substitution, Granger Causality Analysis

References

1. Afxentiou, P.C. ve Serletis, A. (1991), “Exports And Gnp Causality İn The İndustrial Countries: 1950-1985”, Kyklos, 44:2,
2. Bhagwati, J. ve Srinivasan, T. (1979), “Trade Policy And Development”, içinde International Economic Policy: Theory and Evidence, (Eds) R. Dornbusch ve J. Frenkel, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, ss. 1-35.
3. Bahmani-Oskooee, M. ve Domac, I. (1995). “Export growth and economic growth in Turkey: Evidence from cointegration analysis”, METU Studies in Development, 22, ss.67-77.
4. Bahmani-Oskooee, M.; Mohtadi, H. ve Shabsigh, G. (1991), “Exports, Growth and Causalty in LCDs: A Re-examination”, Journal of Development Economics, 36, ss.405-415.
5. Balassa, B. (1978), “Exports and Economic Growth : Further Evidence”, Journal of Development Economics, 5:2, ss.181-189.
6. Birleşmiş Milletler, Comtrade Ticaret İstatistikleri. (Erişim: 2.08.2006) http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/ce/ceSearch.aspx
7. Chang, H. ve Grabel, I. (2005), “Kalkınma Yeniden”, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
8. Chow, P.C.Y. (1987), “Causality Between Export Growth And İndustrial Development : Empirical Evidence From The Nıcs”, Journal of Development Economics, 26:1, ss.55-63.

9. Çelebi, E. (2001), “Türkiye’de Devalüasyon Uygulamaları (1923-2000)”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 2:3, ss.55-66.
10. DİE (2004), Türkiye İstatistik Yıllığı, CD-Rom.
11. Dünya Bankası, World Development Indicators. (Erişim: 02.08.2006). http://devdata.worldbank.org/data-query/
12. Edwards, S. (1993), “Openness, Trade Liberalization, and Growth in Developing Countries, Journal of Economic Literature, 31, ss.1358-1393.
13. Engle, R.F. ve Granger, C.W.J. (1987), “Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing”, Econometrica, 55, ss. 251-276.
14. Feder, G. (1983), “On Exports and Economic Growth”, Journal of Development Economics 12:1, ss. 59–73.
15. Frankel, J.A. ve Romer D. (1996), “Trade and Growth: An Amprical Investigation”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper, No:5476.
16. Granger, C.W.J. (1986) “Developments in the Study of Cointegrated Economic Variables”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 48, ss.213-228.
17. Granger, C.W.J. (1988) “Some Recent Developments in a Concept of Causality”, Journal of Econometrics, 39, ss.199-211.
18. Heller, P.S. ve Porter, R.C. (1978), “Exports and growth: An empirical re-investigation”, Journal of Development Economics, 5:2,
19. Helpman, E. ve Krugman, P. (1985), “Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition, and the International Economy”, Cambridge, MIT Press. IMF, World Economic Outlook Database. (Erişim:15.08.2006). http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/index.htm
20. Jung, W. S. ve Marshall, P. J. (1985), “Exports, Growth and Causalty in Developing Country”, Journal of Development Economics, 18, ss.1-12.
21. Krueger, A. O. (1978), “Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Liberalization Attempts and Consequences”, National Bureau of Economic Research, ss.273-74.
22. Krueger, A.O. (1980), “Trade Policy As An İnput To Development”, American Economic Review, 70, ss.188-292.
23. Levıne, R. ve Renelt, D. (1992), “A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross-Country Growth Regressions”, American Economic Review, 82:4, ss.942-963.
24. Love, J. ve Chandra, R. (2005), “Testing Export-Led Growth in Bangladesh in a Multivarate Var Framework” , Journal of Asian Economics, 15:6, ss.1155-1168.
25. Love, J.(1994), “Engines of Growth: the Exports and Government Sectors”, The World Economy, 317, ss.203-218.
26. Marin, D. (1992), “Is The Export-led Growth Hypothesis Valid for Industrialized Countries?”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 74:4, ss.678-688.
27. Michaely, M. (1977), “Exports And Growth : An Empirical İnvestigation”, Journal of Development Economics, 4:1, ss.49-53.
28. Moosa, I. A. ve Choe, C. (1998), “Is The Korean Economy Export-Driven?”, Economic Modelling, 15:2, ss.237-255.
29. Özmen, E. ve Furtun, G. (1998). “Export-Led Growth Hypothesis And The Turkish Data: An Empirical İnvestication”, METU Studies in Development, 25:3, ss.491-503.
30. Prebisch, R. (1950), The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principle Problems, United Nations Publications, New York.
31. Ram, R. (1985), “Exports and Economic Growth: Some Additional Evidence”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33:2, ss.415-25.
32. Ram, R. (1987), “Exports and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: Evidence from Time-Series and Cross-Section Data”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36:1, ss. 51-73.
33. Ramos, F.F.R. (2001), “Exports, Imports, and Economic Growth in Portugal: Evidence From Causality and Cointegration Analysis”, Economic Modelling, 18:4, ss.613-623.
34. Sims, C.A. (1972), “Money, Income and Causality”, American Economic Review, 62, 540-552.
35. Singer, H.(1950), “The Distributions of Gains Between Investing and Borrowing Countries”, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 40, ss.473-485.
36. Şimşek, M. (2003), İhracata Dayalı-Büyüme Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi Verileri İle Analizi, 1960–2002, Dokuz Eylül Üni. İ.İ.B.F.Dergisi, 18:2, ss.43- 63.
37. Thornton, J. (1996), “Cointegration, Causality and Export–led Growth in Mexico, 1895-1992”, Economic Letters, 50, ss.413-416.
38. TÜİK, Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ulusal Hesaplar ve Dış Ticaret İstatistikleri. (Erişim: 12.08.2006). http://www.tuik.gov.tr
39. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez Bankası, Döviz Kurları. (Erişim: 10.09.2006)http://www.tcmb.gov.tr
40. Yanıkkaya, H. (2003), “Openness and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Development Economics, 72:1, ss.57-89.
41. Yiğidim, A. ve Köse, N. (1997). “İhracat ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki, İthalatın Rolü: Türkiye Örneği (1980-1996)”, Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 8:26, ss.71-85.
42. Young, A. (1991), “Learning by doing and the Dynamic Effects of International Trade”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, ss. 369- 40.