The Asymmetric Effects of Agricultural Policy Support on Agricultural Employment in Türkiye: A NARDL Approach

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 812 - 831, 23.07.2025

Zekiye Şengül Abedı

https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1715210

Abstract

The agricultural sector is recognized as one of the primary economic pillars of Türkiye, contributing significantly to employment, GDP, and export revenues. However, the proportion of the workforce employed in agriculture has been diminishing in conjunction with the growth of the industrial and service sectors. Despite this long-term decline, annual fluctuations in the absolute value of agricultural employment suggest that the sector functions as a stabilizing factor, mitigating the impact of general labor market fluctuations and exhibiting high sensitivity to short-term changes in profitability and support policies. To support this sector, the government implements various policy instruments, including direct payments, input subsidies, and investment incentives. The extant literature suggests that the effects of these subsidies on employment exhibit a complex and paradoxical pattern. The promotion of capital-intensive technologies, the absence of direct employment effects associated with decoupled payments, and the consolidation of large-scale farms are the main mechanisms through which these interactions occur. It has been emphasized that reducing support could lead to more abrupt and disproportionate declines in employment, particularly by driving less efficient farms out of the sector. This reflects a downward asymmetry. In this context, the study analyzed the short- and long-term asymmetric effects of agricultural policy support, as measured by the OECD Producer Support Estimate (PSE) index, on agricultural employment levels in Türkiye. The dataset used for this study consists of annual time series data on agricultural employment, PSE, agricultural credit volume, agricultural product exports and imports, and the share of agriculture in gross domestic product (GDP) from 1986 to 2023. This data was obtained from the TurkStat, SBB, TBB, and OECD databases. The asymmetric relationships are tested using the NARDL cointegration methodology, which is a non-linear lag distributed autoregressive approach. According to the findings, positive shocks in PSE and agricultural credits significantly and positively affect employment in the long run, while positive shocks in agricultural exports negatively affect employment. Conversely, negative shocks to the share of agriculture in GDP increase employment, confirming the sector's "employment buffer" function. Long-run asymmetry is found in PSE and agricultural credits. In the short run, negative shocks to agricultural exports negatively impact employment, while positive shocks to agricultural credit have a negative lagged effect on employment. However, positive shocks to the share of agriculture in GDP increase employment in the short run. Short run asymmetry is observed for export and GDP share variables, but no significant asymmetry is found for PSE. Accordingly, the study suggests that policymakers adopt a multidimensional approach to agricultural subsidies that considers not only the amount, but also the design, orientation, and implementation context. The development of mechanisms that safeguard rural employment and promote alternative employment opportunities is of critical importance. It is recommended that flexible support and credit instruments be designed to target vulnerable groups in the face of short-term negative shocks, with priority given to labor-intensive subsectors and rural diversification initiatives. Moreover, policies aimed at facilitating transitions to non-agricultural employment—such as vocational training programs and support for local entrepreneurship—should be strengthened.

Keywords

Producer support estimate (PSE) , asymmetric effects , NARDL , cointegration

References

• Ahearn, M. C., El-Osta, H., & Dewbre, J. (2006). The impact of coupled and decoupled government subsidies on Off-farm labor participation of U.S. farm operators. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(2), 393–408.
• Akça, H., & Altuntaş, H. (2022). Tarımsal desteklerin tarımsal çıktı üzerine etkisi: Türkiye için amprik bir analiz. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 31(2), 560–572. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1125443
• Akkoyunlu, Ş. (2024). Testing Okun’s law for Turkey (1923-2019). Studies in Economics and Econometrics, 48(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03796205.2024.2329876
• Aytekin, İ. (2024). Türkiye’de sektörel istihdamın ihracat üzerindeki etkisi. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 7(3), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.33712/mana.1576966
• Bayramoğlu, Z., Ağızan, K., & Ağızan, S. (2021). Kamu desteklerinin tarımsal ürün piyasalarına bozucu etkisi. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 11(4), 3184–3194. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.942035
• Bayramoğlu, Z., & Gündoğmuş, E. (2008). Türkiye ekonomisinde öne çıkan tarımsal ve tarıma dayalı sanayii alt sektörlerinin belirlenmesi. Verimlilik Dergisi, 2, 143–155.
• Baysuğ, İ. (2017). 2014-2020 dönemi katılım öncesi yardım aracı kırsal kalkınma bileşeni (IPARD II) ın Türk tarımı açısından değerlendirilmesi. İCPESS.
• Berlinschi, R., Swinnen, J. F. M., & Van Herck, K. (2012). Subsidies and agricultural employment: The education channel. August 18-24, Foz Do Iguacu, Brazil.
• Blandford, D., Brunstad, R. J., Gaasland, I., & Vardal, E. (2007). Optimal agricultural policy and PSE measurement: an assessment and application to Norway. NHH Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper., 1–19.
• Boháčková, I. (2015). Several comments on creation and use of PSE indicator within measuring of financial transfers to agricultural producers. Agris On-Line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 7(1), 21–31.
• Brown, R. L., Durbin, J., & Evans, J. M. (1975). Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 37(2), 149–192.
• Caunedo, J., & Kala, N. (2021). Mechanizing agriculture impacts on labor and productivity. Dispersion in Financing Costs and Development., 1–59.
• Çelik, A. D. (2022). Contributions of agricultural subsidies to increase producer income in cotton and milk productions: A case study of Hatay Province-Turkey. The Philippine Agricultural Scientist, 105(1), 92–99.
• Chalajour, M., & Nashroodkoli, P. S. (2022). A review and analysis of agricultural support policies in OECD countries (1995-2015). International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S1), 12685–12708. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS1.8185
• Çiçen, Y. B. (2022). 2000’li yıllarda Türkiye’de emek piyasasında gelişmeler: Karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 7(3), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.23834/isrjournal.1150218
• Dall’erba, S., & van Leeuwen, E. (2006). Does agricultural employment benefit from EU support? 46th Congress of the European Regional Science Association (ERSA).
• Demirdöğen, A. (2020). Döviz kurundaki değişimin OECD tarımsal destek göstergeleri ile ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Tarım Ekonomisi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 74–85.
• Demirdöğen, A., Olhan, E., & Chavas, J.-P. (2016). Food vs. fiber: An analysis of agricultural support policy in Turkey. Food Policy, 61, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.013
• Demirdogen, A., Olhan, E., & Hasdemir, M. (2022). Heterogeneous impact of agricultural support policies: Evidence from Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(10), 12203–12225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01941-9
• Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348
• Ding, G., Fan, H., Li, R., Wang, H., & Xi, X. (2024). Agricultural imports, labor mobility and welfare (SSRN Scholarly Paper 5041835). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5041835
• Erhalim, S. (2011). Türkiye’de tarım sektöründe istihdamın azalması ve işgücü piyasasına etkisi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Eslami, M. R., & Sherafatmand, H. (2013). The impact of producer support estimate (PSE) on the productivity: Evidence from Maize production. International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production, 4(6), 1271–1280.
• FAO. (2025). Türkiye at a glance. https://www.fao.org/turkiye/fao-in-turkiye/turkey-at-a-glance/en/ Accessed 17 May 2025
• Garrone, M., Emmers, D., Olper, A., & Swinnen, J. (2019). Jobs and agricultural policy: Impact of the common agricultural policy on EU agricultural employment. Food Policy, 87, 101744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101744
• Gebeyehu, L., & and Bedemo, A. (2024). How agricultural credit and subsidies impact agricultural productivity in Ethiopia: Empirical evidence using ardl model. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 10(1), 2329118. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2024.2329118
• Gezer, T., & Gezer, M. A. (2022). Tarımsal destek ve kredilerin tarımsal üretim üzerindeki etkinliği. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(4), 1102–1113. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1151057
• Göksü, S., & Balkı, A. (2023). ARDL ve NARDL eşbütünleşme analizleri: Adım adım Eviews uygulaması. Serüven Yayınevi.
• Görmüş, A. (2019). Türkiye’de tarımsal istihdamın cinsiyete dayalı yapısı ve sosyal politika önerileri. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.451375 Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic econometrics (4. ed). McGraw Hill.
• Gülçubuk, B., & Aluftekin, N. (2006). Impact of international agricultural policies on rural poverty in Turkey. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 5(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v5i1.3444 Guvenek, B., Afsar, B., & Karacor, Z. (2022). The effect of agricultural support policies on economic development and growth. Journal of Business Management and Economic Research, 6(6), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.29226/TR1001.2022.313
• Hatunoğlu, E., & Eldeni̇z, F. (2012). 2000 yılı sonrası türk tarım sektöründe yapısal dönüşüm politikaları. Sayıştay Dergisi, 86, 27–56.
• He, X. (2020). US agricultural exports and labor market adjustments. Agricultural Economics, 51(4), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12575
• Karakaş, G., & Erdal, G. (2017). Döviz kuru oynaklığının Türkiye'nin tarımsal dış ticaretine etkisi. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 5(6), 668–675. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v5i6.668-675.1141
• Karakaya, M. C. (2023). OECD ülkelerinde tarımsal destekleme politikalarının tarımsal verimlilik üzerindeki etkisi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Karapici, V., Gjipali, A., & Matraku (Dervishi), D. (2024). Producer support estimate effects in terms of commodity production – An empirical investigation. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 21, 1325–1341. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2024.21.108
• Kashif, U., Shi, J., Naseem, S., Ayaz, M., Butt, R. S., Khan, W. A., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2023). Do agricultural commodity prices asymmetrically affect the performance of value-added agriculture? Evidence from Pakistan using a NARDL model. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01888-4
• Keskin, Ö., & Çıkıryel, B. (2024). An analysis of the relationship between interest-free financing of agricultural production and agricultural growth using contemporary econometric methods. Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi, 7(3), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.52637/kiid.1508721
• Khan, Z. A., Koondhar, M. A., Aziz, N., Ali, U., & Tianjun, L. (2020). Revisiting the effects of relevant factors on Pakistan’s agricultural products export. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika), 66(12), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.17221/252/2020-AGRICECON
• Kizilaslan, N., Cetin, İ., & Kizilaslan, H. (2007). Direct income subsidy practices in Turkey. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 1(2), 115–125.
• Kocaman, M. (2024). Kamu harcamalarının dışlama etkisinin nardl yöntemi ile sınanması: Türkiye örneği. Sayıştay Dergisi, 134, 459–482. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1559190
• Konyali, S., & Oraman, Y. (2019). The role of agricultural supports in sustainable rural development: The case of Turkey. Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference, Bulgaria of regions.
• Kulikova, A., Astashova, A., & Kvasha, A. (2021). Features of the legal regulation of seasonal workers employed in agriculture. E3S Web of Conferences, 273, 08028. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202127308028
• Mullen, K., Sun, D., Orden, D., & Gulati, A. (2004). Producer support estimates (PSEs) for agriculture in developing countries: Measurement issues and illustrations from India and China. Nternational Food Policy Research Institute, 74, 1–86.
• Nagarjuna, D. P., Rao, D. P. M., Kiran, D. B. V. S., & Rajyalakshmi, D. B. (2024). Transforming farms role and impact of agricultural mechanization. Transforming Farms Role and Impact of Agricultural Mechanization, Edition 1, 1–263. https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/mono/978-81-982889-9-8
• OECD. (2024). Agricultural policy monitoring and evaluation 2024 (p. 657). https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/agricultural-policy-monitoring-and-evaluation-2024_74da57ed-en.html
• OECD. (2025). Data Explorer. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/ Accessed 01 May 2025
• Olakojo, S. A., & Sheet, A.-F. (2016). Seasonal labour market rigidities: Impact on farm employment and wages in Nigeria. Economics of Agriculture, 63(4), 1123–1140. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekoPolj1604123O
• Olhan, E. (2011). Türkiye’de kırsal istihdamın yapısı (pp. 1–24). FAO.
• Oskam, A. J., & Meester, G. (2006). How useful is the PSE in determining agricultural support? Food Policy, 31(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.10.004
• Peng, J., Zhao, Z., & Liu, D. (2022). Impact of agricultural mechanization on agricultural production, income, and mechanism: Evidence from Hubei Province, China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.838686
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.
• Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.2307/2336182
• Ray, S., Haqiqi, I., Hill, A. E., Taylor, J. E., & Hertel, T. W. (2025). The role of labor markets in determining the efficacy and distributional impact of sustainability policies. In I. Haqiqi & T. W. Hertel (Eds.), SIMPLE-G: A Gridded Economic Approach to Sustainability Analysis of the Earth’s Land and Water Resources (pp. 199–216). Springer Nature Switzerland.
• Remeikiene, R., Gaspareniene, L., & Volkov, A. (2018). Evaluation of the influence of the export in agricultural products on the Baltic States economic growth. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14(3), 83–94.
• Rios e Silva, J. P., & Arruda, E. F. (2019). Impactos do crédito rural no mercado de trabalho da agropecuária dos estados brasileiros. 13(3), 340–356.
• Rizov, M., Pokrivcak, J., & Ciaian, P. (2013). CAP subsidies and productivity of the EU farms. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3), 537–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12030
• Sağdıç, E. N., & Çakmak, E. (2021). Tarımsal destek ödemeleri ile tarımsal üretim düzeyi arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(2), 1858–1880. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.851919
• Said, S. E., & Dickey, D. A. (1984). Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika, 71(3), 599–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/2336570
• Saka, K. A., Akinde, M. A., & Afolabi, A. R. (2023). Credit financing and agricultural development in Nigeria. Archives of Business Research, 11(10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.1110.15172
• SBB. (2025).T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı - SBB. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/ Accessed 01 May 2025
• Semerci̇, A. (2019). Türkiye’de tarımsal destekleme uygulamaları. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.33202/comuagri.418108
• Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In R. C. Sickles & W. C. Horrace (Eds.), Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric Methods and Applications (pp. 281–314). Springer.
• Siudek, T., & Zawojska, A. (2011). Relationship of development and fiscal indicators with agricultural producer support in the OECD economies. International Congress, August 30-September 2, Zurich, Switzerland. Tan, S., Tan, S. S., Everest, B., Hasdemir, M. (2016). Agricultural support policies and public budgeting in Turkey. Management Studies, 4(6), 237–242.
• Tangermann, S. (2005). Is the concept of the producer support estimate in need of revision? (OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 1; p. 22).
• TBB. (2025). Türkiye Bankalar Birliği veri sistemi. https://verisistemi.tbb.org.tr/ Accessed 05 May 2025 Teri̇n, M., Aksoy, A., & Güler, İ. O. (2013). Tarımsal büyümeye etki eden ekonomik faktörlerin belirlenmesi üzerine bir çalışma. Iğdır Üni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Der., 3(3), 41–50.
• Timmer, C. (1997). How well do the poor connect to the growth process? CAER Discussion Paper No, Harvard Institute for International Development., 179.
• T.R. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2025). 2024-2028 Stratejik plan (p. 94). https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/SGB/Belgeler/stratejikplan.pdf
• TurkStat. (2025). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://www.tuik.gov.tr/ Accessed 20 April 2025
• Us, K., & Akbıyık, N. (2023). Tarım sektöründe istihdam ve çalışanların sosyal güvenliği. Econharran, 7(12), 25–36.
• Uzel, G., Kuzu, M., Güler, A., & Gürlük, S. (2025). Asymmetric effects of agricultural input prices on farmgate prices in Türkiye. Agriculture, 15(6), 607. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15060607
• Yanıkkaya, H., & Koral, Z. (2013). Impacts of agricultural supports on exports of individual agricultural products in turkey. International Review of Economics and Management, 1(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.18825/iremjournal.109057
• Yavuz, F. (2024). Türkiye tarımı gıda arz güvenliğini sağlar mı? Kriter Dergi. https://kriterdergi.com/ekonomi/turkiye-tarimi-gida-arz-guvenligini-saglar-mi