SUSTAINABILITY OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY EXPORT: EVIDENCE FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Abstract

Today, utilizing from technology is not sufficient for economic development and prosperity of a country. Producing and also marketing the new technology are also crucial. For this reason, volume of high technology export which is required intensive research and development expenditures and activities is accepted as economic development indicator in recent years. It can be said that the country which has sustainable high technology volume has also consistent economic development. Aim of this study is to examine 17 European countries’ sustainability of high technology export. In order to contribute to the literature, SurADF panel unit root test is used. Results show that only Denmark, Lithuanian and Slovenia have the sustainable high technology export. For further research different econometric analysis and countries can be used.

Keywords: High technology export, panel unit root, sustainability

 

References

1. Amaghouss, J., & Ibourk, A. (2013). Entrepreneurial Activities, Innovation and Economic Growth: The Role of Cyclical Factors Evidence from OECD Countries for the Period 2001-2009. International Business Research, 6(1), 153-165.
2. Breuer, J., McNown, R., & Wallace, M. (2001). The Review Misleading Inferences from Panel Unit-Root Tests with and Illustration from Puchasing Power Parity. Review of Inetrnational Economics, 9(3), 482-493.
3. Breusch, T., & Pagan, A. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
4. Connolly, R. (2012). Climbing the Ladder? High-Technology Export Performance in Emerging Europe. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 53(3), 356-379.
5. De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. Stata Journal, 6(4), 482.
6. Göçer, İ. (2013, Temmuz-Aralık). Ar-Ge Harcamalarının Yüksek Teknolojili Ürün İhracatı, Dış Ticaret Dengesi ve Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkileri. Maliye Dergisi(165), 215-240.
7. GÜMÜŞ, F. B., & KOÇ, M. (2015). ÜLKELERİN FİNANSAL GELİŞMİŞLİKLERİ İLE ENERJİ TÜKETİMLERİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: DÖRT KITA ÖRNEĞİ. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 151-164.
8. Kılıç, C., Bayar, Y., & Zekioğlu, H. (2014). ARAŞTIRMA GELİŞTİRME HARCAMALARININ YÜKSEK TEKNOLOJİ ÜRÜN İHRACATI ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: G–8 ÜLKELERİ İÇİN BİR PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ. Erciyes Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi(44), 115-130.

9. Peseran, M. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Corss Section Dependence in Panels. IZA Discussion Paper, 1240.
10. Samimi, J., & Ledary, R. (2010). ICT and Economic Growth: New Evidence from Some Developing Countries. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4(8), 3086-3091.
11. Tzeng, H.-W., & Chen, T.-H. (2015). An Empirical Testing Hysteresis in Unemployment for Eight Eastern Europe Countries: A Panel SURADF Approach. Fertility Dakota University Journal(40), 87-102.
12. YU, C.-P. (2016). Size and Growth of Mobile Phone Firms in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The Chinese Economy, 49(4), 277-286.
13. Zhang, L., Song, W., & He, J. (2012). Empirical Research on the Relationship between Scientific Innovation and Economic Growth in Beijing. Technology and Investment, 3, 168-173.