THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY, INEQUALITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: THE CASE OF NUTS-1 REGIONS OF TURKEY

Year 2019, Volume: 17 Issue: 4, 145 - 164, 30.12.2019

Nurgül Evcim , Sevcan Güneş , Hacer Simay Karaalp-orhan

https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.570805

Cited By: 4

Abstract

The increase in income is very important in the fight against poverty. In particular, a fair distribution of increased income is one of the most effective factors in reducing poverty. In the literature, most of the studies examining the relationship between poverty, inequality and growth are composed of descriptive studies. Empirical studies have examined the relationship between income inequality and economic growth, economic growth and poverty or inequality and poverty. The results obtained in the few studies that examine the relationship between poverty, income inequality and economic growth are different. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between poverty, income distribution and growth in NUTS-1 regions of Turkey and it also aimed to contribute to a limited number of existing literature. In this context, by using the poverty rate, Gini coefficient and per capita income variables Panel Fisher Test was employed for 12 NUTS-1 regions in Turkey over the period of 2006-2017. According to the results, Panel Fisher Test result indicates a causal relationship to from poverty to economic growth for Turkey. While poverty affected the economic growth of Turkey, the different results were obtained for different models based on regions.

Keywords

Income Distribution Inequality, Poverty, Economic Growth, NUTS-1, Panel Causality Analysis

YOKSULLUK, EŞİTSİZLİK VE BÜYÜME ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: TÜRKİYE DÜZEY-1 ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

Yoksullukla
mücadelede gelir artışı büyük önem arz etmektedir. Özellikle artan gelirin
adaletli bir dağılım göstermesi yoksulluğun azaltılmasında en etkili
faktörlerden biridir. Literatürde yoksulluk, eşitsizlik ve büyüme arasındaki
ilişkiyi inceleyen çalışmaların büyük bir kısmı betimsel çalışmalardan
oluşmaktadır. Ampirik uygulamaların yer aldığı çalışmalar daha çok gelir
eşitsizliği ve ekonomik büyüme, ekonomik büyüme ve yoksulluk ya da eşitsizlik ve
yoksulluk arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemiştir. Yoksulluk, gelir eşitsizliği ve
ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi beraber inceleyen az sayıdaki çalışmalarda
elde edilen sonuçlar ise farklılık göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’nin
Düzey-1 bölgelerinde yoksulluk, gelir dağılımı ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki
ilişki analiz edilerek az sayıdaki mevcut literatüre katkı yapılması
amaçlanmıştır. Bu nedenle 2006-2017 döneminde Türkiye’deki yoksulluk oranı, Gini
katsayısı ve kişi başına düşen gelir değişkenleri kullanılarak 11 bölge için Emirmahmutoğlu
ve Köse (2011) tarafından geliştirilen Panel Fisher testi ile nedensellik
analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, Panel Fisher testi
Türkiye genelinde yoksulluktan ekonomik büyümeye doğru bir nedensellik ilişkisi
ortaya koyarken, bölgeler bazında farklı modeller için farklı sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. 

Keywords

Yoksulluk, Gelir Dağılımı Eşitsizliği, Ekonomik Büyüme, Düzey-1, Panel Nedensellik Analizi

References

• Anderson, W. (1964) “Trickling Down: The Relationship Between Economic Growth and the Extent of Poverty Among American Families”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78: 511-524.
• Blank, R. M. ve Card, D. (1993) “Poverty, Income Distribution and Growth: Are They Still Connected?”, Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 2: 285-339.
• Barro, R. (2000) “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries”, Journal of Economic Growth, 5: 5-32.
• Barro, R. J. (2008) “Inequality and Growth Revisited, Working Papers on Regional Economic Integration 11”, Asian Development Bank.
• Bruno, Michael, Martin Ravallion ve Lyn Squire, (1998) “Equity and Growth in Developing Countries: Old and New Perspectives on the Policy Issues,” in Income Distribution and High-Quality Growth (edited by Vito Tanzi and Ke-young Chu), Cambridge, Mass: MITPress.
• Çalışkan, Ş. (2010) “Türkiye’de Gelir Eşitsizliği ve Yoksulluk”, Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları, 59: 89-132.
• Dawson, P. J. (1997) “On Testing Kuznets’ Economic Growth Hypothesis”, Applied Economics Letters, 4(7): 409-410.
• Deininger, K. ve Squire, L. (1997) “Economic Growth and Income Inequality: Reexamining the Links”, Finance & Development, 38-41.
• Deininger, K. ve Squire, L. (1998) “New ways of looking at old issues: Inequality and Growth”, Journal of Development Economics, 57(2): 259-287.
• De Janvry, A. ve Sadoulet, E. (1996) “Growth, Inequality, and Poverty in Latin America: A Causal Analysis, 1970-94”, Working Paper No.784.
• De Sousa-Brown, S. C. B., ve Gebremedhin, T. G. (2004) “An Empirical Analysis of Poverty and Income Inequality in West Virginia”, 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20223, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
• Dollar, D. ve Kraay, A. (2001) “Growth is Good for the Poor”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 02/22.
• Duran, H. E. (2015) “Türkiye’de Yoksulluğa Bölgesel Bir Bakış”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(2): 87-103.
• Emirmahmutoğlu ve Köse (2011) “Testing for Granger Causality in Heterogeneous Mixed Panels”, Economic Modelling, 28: 870-876.
• Fields, G.S. (1994) “Does Economic Growth Reduce Poverty?: Empirical Evidence for The Developing Countries”, Cornell University.
• Fields, G.S. (1994) “The Kuznets Curve: A Good Idea But…”, Cuadernos Económicos, Cornell University.
• Huang, Ho-Chuan R. (2004) “A flexible nonlinear inference to the Kuznets hypothesis”, Economics Letters, 84(2): 289-296.
• Karaalp-Orhan, H.S. and Gülel, F. (2016) “Regional Unemployment in Turkey: A Spatial Panel Data Analysis”, Journal of Social Security, 6(2): 47-67.
• Khan, A. (2001) “Employment Policies for Poverty Reduction”, Recovery and Reconstruction Department, Discussion paper 1, Geneva, ILO.
• Klasen, S. (2003) “In Search of the Holy Grail: How to Achieve Pro-Poor Growth?”, Discussion Paper No.96, Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research”, Georg-August University, Gottingen.
• Kraay, A. (2006) “When is Growth Pro-Poor? Evidence from a Panel of Countries,” Journal of Development Economics, 198-227.
• Kuznets, S. (1955) “Economic growth and income inequality,” American Economic Review 45:1-28.
• Li, H. L. Squire, ve Zou, H. (1998) “Explaining International and Intertemporal Variations in Income Inequality”, Economic Journal 108: 26-43.
• OECD (2019), Income inequality (indicator). doi: 10.1787/459aa7f1-en (Accessed on 08 April 2019)
• Öztürk, N. ve Y. Öztürk (2010) “Yoksullukla Mücadelede Sosyal Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışma Vakıfları”, Palme Yayıncılık, 1. Baskı, Ankara.
• Papanek, G. F. ve Kyn, O. (1986) “The Effect on Income Distribution of Development, the Growth Rate and Economic Strategy”, Journal of Development Economics, 23(1): 55-65.
• Ravallion, M. (1995) “Growth and Poverty: Evidence for Developing Countries in the 1980s,” Economics Letters, 48: 411-417.
• Ravallion, M. (1996) “Issues in Measuring and Modelling Poverty”, The Economic Journal, 106 (438): 1328-1343.
• Ravallion, M. ve Chen, S. (2003) “Measuring Pro-Poor Growth”, Economics Letters, 78: 93–9.
• Ravallion, M. (2004) “Pro-Poor Growth: A Primer, The World Bank”, Policy Research Working Paper, No. 3242.
• Schultz, T. P. (1998) “Inequality in the Distribution of Personal Income in the World: How is It Changing and Why?”, Journal of Population Economics, 11(3): 307-344.
• Squire, L. (1993) “Fighting Poverty”, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 83(2): 377-382.
• Stevans, L. K. Ve Sessions, D. N. (2005) “The Relationship Between Poverty, Economic Growth, and Inequality Revisited”, GE, Growth, Math methods 0502002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
• Toda, H. Y. ve Yamamoto, T. (1995) “Statistical Inferences in Vector Autoregressions with Possibly Integrated Processes”, Journal of Econometrics, 66: 225‐250.
• TÜİK, (2019), “İşgücü İstatistikleri”, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1007 (10.02.2019)
• Wallace, T.D. ve Hussain A. (1969) “The use of error components models in combining cross-section and time-series data”, Econometrica, 37: 55-72.