ECONOMIC FREEDOM, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: KÓNYA BOOTSTRAP CAUSALITY ANALYSIS IN BRICST COUNTRIES

Year 2018, Prof. Dr. Harun TERZI Special Issue, 379 - 390, 19.09.2018

Tuncer Gövdeli

https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.451262

Cited By: 12

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between
economic freedom, tourism incomes and economic growth for BRICST (Brazil,
Russia, India, China, South Africa and Turkey) countries over the period
1995-2016. For this purpose, firstly, the cross section dependency of the panel
was investigated. It was determined that the slope coefficients of the panel
were heterogeneous after determining cross section dependency on the panel. The
heterogeneity of the slope coefficients under the cross section dependency of
the panel provided the precondition of the Kónya (2006) causality test.
According to the analysis of causality test in Kónya (2006); i) uni-directional
running from economic growth to economic freedom in India and South Africa are
found. ii) Uni-directional causality in the China, South Africa and Turkey and
bi-directional running from tourism income to economic growth in Russia are
found. iii) Bi-directional causality in the India and uni-directional running
from tourism income to economic freedom in South Africa are found. iv) uni-directional
running from economic freedom and tourism income to economic growth in Russia
are found.

Keywords

Economic Freedom, Tourism, Economic Growth, Bootstrap Causality

EKONOMİK ÖZGÜRLÜK, TURİZM VE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME: BRICST ÜLKELERİNDE KÓNYA BOOTSTRAP NEDENSELLİK ANALİZİ

Abstract

Bu
çalışmada BRICST (Brezilya, Rusya, Hindistan, Çin, Güney Afrika ve Türkiye)
ülkelerinin 1995 ile 2016 döneminin ekonomik özgürlük, turizm gelirleri ve
ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi analiz edilmiştir. Bu amaçla öncelikle panelin yatay
kesit bağımlılığı araştırılmıştır. Panelde yatay kesit bağımlılığı
belirlendikten sonra panelin eğim katsayılarının heterojen olduğu belirlenmiştir.
Panelin yatay kesit bağımlılığı altında eğim katsayılarının heterojen olması,
Konya (2006) nedensellik testinin ön koşulunu sağlamıştır. Konya (2006)
nedensellik testi analizleri göre; i) Hindistan ve Güney Afrika ülkelerinde
ekonomik büyüme ekonomik özgürlüğün nedenselidir. ii) Çin, Güney Afrika ve
Türkiye’de turizm gelirleri ekonomik büyümenin nedenselidir ve Rusya’da
ekonomik büyüme ile turizm gelirleri arasında çift yönlü nedensellik tespit
edilmiştir. iii) Hindistan’da ekonomik özgürlük ile turizm gelirleri arasında
çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi vardır ve Güney Afrika’da turizm gelirleri
ekonomik özgürlüğün nedenselidir. iv) Rusya’da ekonomik özgürlük ve turizm
gelirleri ile ekonomik büyüme arasında nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Ekonomik Özgürlük, Turizm, Ekonomik Büyüme, Bootstrap Nedensellik

References

• Anwar, S., ve Quaratulain, W. A. (2017). Economic Freedom and Growth Nexus in Selected South Asian Countries. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci, 7(10), 40-47.
• Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton university press.
• Breusch, T. S., ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, ss.239-253.
• Haan, J., ve Sturm, J. E. (2000). On the relationship between economic freedom and economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 16(2), 215-241.
• Deng, T., Ma, M., ve Shao, S. (2014). Research note: Has international tourism promoted economic growth in China? A panel threshold regression approach. Tourism Economics, 20(4), 911-917.
• Dritsakis, N. (2012). Tourism development and economic growth in seven Mediterranean countries: A panel data approach. Tourism Economics, 18(4), 801-816.
• Fabro, G., ve Aixalá, J. (2012). Direct and indirect effects of economic and political freedom on economic growth. Journal of Economic Issues, 46(4), 1059-1080.
• Farhadi, M., Islam, M. R., ve Moslehi, S. (2015). Economic freedom and productivity growth in resource-rich economies. World Development, 72, 109-126.
• Gunduz, L., ve Hatemi-J, A. (2005). Is the tourism-led growth hypothesis valid for Turkey?. Applied Economics Letters, 12(8), 499-504.
• Gwartney, J. D., Holcombe, R. G., ve Lawson, R. A. (2004). Economic freedom, institutional quality, and cross-country differences in income and growth. Cato J., 24, 205.
• Gwartney, J., and Lawson, R. 2004. Economic Freedom of the World: Annual Report. Vancouver, B.C.:Fraser Institute.
• Husein, J., ve Kara, S. M. (2011). Research note: Re-examining the tourism-led growth hypothesis for Turkey. Tourism Economics, 17(4), 917-924.
• Justesen, M. K. (2008). The effect of economic freedom on growth revisited: New evidence on causality from a panel of countries 1970–1999. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(3), 642-660.
• Kacprzyk, A. (2016). Economic freedom–growth nexus in European Union countries. Applied Economics Letters, 23(7), 494-497.
• Kareem, O. I. (2013). A reassessment of tourism-exports led growth hypothesis in Africa. American Journal of Tourism Research, 2(1), 130-140.
• Katircioglu, S. (2009). Testing the tourism-led growth hypothesis: The case of Malta. Acta Oeconomica, 59(3), 331-343.
• Kónya, L. (2006). Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978-992.
• Lee, J. W., ve Brahmasrene, T. (2013). Investigating the influence of tourism on economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from panel analysis of the European Union. Tourism Management, 38, 69-76.
• Nissan, E., Galindo, M. A., ve Méndez, M. T. (2011). Relationship between tourism and economic growth. The Service Industries Journal, 31(10), 1567-1572.North, D. C., ve Thomas, R. P. (1973). The rise of the western world: A new economic history. Cambridge University Press.
• Payne, J. E., ve Mervar, A. (2010). Research note: The tourism–growth nexus in Croatia. Tourism Economics, 16(4), 1089-1094.
• Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
• Pesaran, M. H., (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics no. 435. University of Cambridge.
• Piątek, D., Szarzec, K., ve Pilc, M. (2013). Economic freedom, democracy and economic growth: a causal investigation in transition countries. Post-Communist Economies, 25(3), 267-288.
• Razmi, M. J., ve Refaei, R. (2013). The effect of trade openness and economic freedom on economic growth: the case of Middle East and East Asian countries. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 3(2), 376-385.
• Saha, S., Su, J. J., ve Campbell, N. (2017). Does political and economic freedom matter for inbound tourism? A cross-national panel data estimation. Journal of Travel research, 56(2), 221-234.Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 311-323.
• Terzi, H. (2015). Is the Tourism-Led Growth Hypothesis (TLGH) Valid for Turkey?. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 16(2), 165-178.
• WTTC- Dünya Seyahat ve Turizm Konseyi, TRAVEL ve TOURISM ECONOMIC IMPACT 2017 WORLD https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/regions-2017/world2017.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 04.08.2018.
• Zortuk, M. (2009). Economic impact of tourism on Turkey’s economy: evidence from cointegration tests. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 25(3), 231-239.