KÖRFEZ EKONOMİLERİNDE CARİ İŞLEMLER FAZLASI SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR Mİ? İKİ KIRILMALI BİRİM KÖK ANALİZİ İLE AMPİRİK BİR ÇALIŞMA

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 10, 171 - 188, 30.12.2018

Gülgün Çiğdem

Öz

Cari açık, cari fazladan daha fazla zarar verdiği için,
araştırmalar açık ve sürdürülebilirliği üzerinde yoğunlaşmaktadır. En çok açık
veren ABD’nin cari açığı, Almanya, Çin, Japonya ve petrol ihracatçısı ülkelerin
fazlaları ile eşleşmektedir. Petrol gelirlerindeki azalma, Körfez Ülkeleri’nin
ekonomilerinde sıkıntıya yol açmaktadır. İşte bu noktada, cari işlem fazlasının
sürdürülebilirliğinin de incelenmesi önem kazanmaktadır. Bu açıdan bu çalışma,
literatüre bir katkı niteliğindedir. Çalışmanın amacı, 1980-2016 döneminde
Körfez ekonomilerinin cari hesap fazlasının, durağan minimum LM birim kök testi
kullanılarak sürdürülebilirliğini araştırmaktadır. Sonuçlara göre birim kök boş
hipotezi reddedilebilir, Bahreyn, İran, Kuveyt ve Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri'nde
durağan bir süreç sözkonusudur. Sonuçlar politika yapıcılar için önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cari İşlemler Dengesi, Cari İşlemler Fazlası, Sürdürülebilirlik

IS THE CURRENT ACCOUNT SURPLUS IN GULF ECONOMIES SUSTAINABLE? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS FOR UNIT ROOT TEST WITH TWO STRUCTURAL BREAKS

Öz

As the current deficit
damages economy more than the current accounts surplus, the researchers generally
concentrate on the current accounts deficit and its sustainability. The current
accounts deficit of the USA, which gives the highest deficit, matches with the
current accounts surpluses of Germany, China, Japan and oil-exporting
countries. As the oil can be consumed, the renewable energy sources begin to
take the place of the oil, the decrease in demand of oil with the slowdown at
the global growth leading by China and India and the decrease in the oil
incomes with the increase in oil supply at the other countries cause distress
in the economies of the Gulf Countries. In this point, the examination of the
sustainability of the current account surplus also gains importance. In this
respect, this study, in which the sustainability of the current account balance
of the Gulf Economies having current account surplus and in the position of oil
exporters were tested, is a partake of the contribution to the literature. This
paper analysis sustainability of the current account surplus of Gulf Economies
between the years 1980-2016 by utilising the minimum LM unit root test for
stationary. As per the outcomes, the unit root null hypothesis could be
rejected, it is a constant process in Bahrain, Iran, Kuwait and United Arab
Emirates. The results obtained are also important for the policymakers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Current Account Balance, Current Account Surplus, Sustainability

Kaynakça

• Apergis, N., Katrakilidis, K.P. and Tabakis, N.M. (2000). Current account deficit sustainability: The case of Greece. Applied Economics Letters, 7. 599–603.
• Arize, A. (2002). Imports and exports in 50 countries: Tests of cointegration and structural breaks. International Review of Economics and Finance, 11(1). 101–115.
• Bahramushah, A., Lau, E., and Fauntas, S. (2003). On the sustainability of current account deficits: Evidence from four ASEAN countries. Journal of Asian Economics. 14(3). 465–487.
• Bahmani-Oskooee, M. (1994). Are imports and exports of Australia cointegrated?. Journal of Economic Integration. 9(4). 525–533.
• Blanchard, Olivier and Milesi-Ferreti, Gian Maria (2011, March 1). Why Should Current Account Balances Be Reduced?. IMF Staff Discussion Note. 03. 1-15.
• BP. (2016, a). Statistical Review of World Energy-underpinning data, 1965-2016.
• BP. (2016, b). Dünya Enerji İstatistikleri Raporu 2016.
• BP. (2017, a). Statistical Review of World Energy June 2017.
• BP. (2017, b). Energy Outlook. 2017 Edition.
• Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., Kim, D. & Perron, P. (2009). GLS-Based Unit Root Tests with Multiple Structural Breaks Under Both the Null and the Alternative Hypotheses.
• Econometric Theory. 25. 1754-1792.
• Christopoulos, D., and Leon–Ledesma, M., (2010). Current account sustainability in the US: What did we really know about it?. Journal of International Money and Finance, 29(3). 442–459.
• Edson, H. (2003). Do Indicators of Financial Crisis Work? An Evaluation of an Early Warning System. International Journal of Finance and Economics. 8 (1). 11-53.
• Edwards, Sebastian (2004, Jan.). Thirty Years of Current Account Imbalances, Current Account Reversals and Sudden Stops. NBER Working Paper. No.10276.
• Fotourehchi, Zahra, Şahinöz, Ahmet and Davoud Panahi (2015). Patterns of Current Account Imbalances: A Case Study on Iran and Turkey. Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development. 36(1). 33-50.
• Fountas, S., and Wu, J. L. (1999). Are the US current account deficits very sustainable? International Economic Journal. 13(3). 51–58, GCC, Data Portal Platform [Internet], https://gccstat.org/en/?option=com_form2contentsearch&task=search.display&pb=1&moduleid=209&searchformid=4&results=29&f2cs_209_8_4=9&Itemid=509
• Gould, D. M., and Ruffin, R. J. (1996).Trade deficits: Causes and consequences. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Review. 10–20 (fourth quarter).
• Guastella, A. and Menghi, A. (December 2016). GCC Market, Overview and Economic Outlook 2017: A Challenging Transformation Ahead to Achieve Desirable Growth. Perspective, http://www.valuepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/MENA-REGION-122016-DIGIVERSION.pdf
• Husain A.M., R. Arezki, P. Breuer, V. Haksar, T. Helbling, P. Medas, M. Sommer and IMF Staff Team. (2015). Global Implications of Lower Oil Prices. Accessed on: 24.02.2016, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1515.pdf.
• International Energy Agency (IEA). (2017). World Energy Outlook 2017.
• Husted, S. (1993). The emerging US current account deficit in the 80s: A cointegration analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 74(1). 159–66.
• Kosinowski, M. (2002, Oct.8). Oil exploitation technologies. Fossil Energy. Springer, Landolt-Börnstein - Group VIII Advanced Materials and Technologies. 25-39.
• Lee, J., and Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics. 85(4). 1082-1089.
• Lee, J., and Strazicich, M. C. (2004). Minimum LM Unit Root Test with One Structural Break. Appalachian State University Working Papers. 04(17). 1-15.
• Lumsdaine, R.L., and Papell, D.H. (1997). Multiple Trend Breaks and The Unit Root Hypothesis. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 79. 212- 218.
• Mann, C. L. (2002). Perspective on the US current account deficit and sustainability. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 16(3). 131–152.
• Ng, S., and Perron, P. (2001). Lag Length Selection and the Construction of Unit Root Tests with Good Size and Power. Econometrica. 69. 1519- 1554.
• Obstfeld, M. and Kenneth, R. (1995). The Intertemporal Approach to the Current Account. In G. Grossman and K. Rogoff (eds.), Handbook of International Macroeconomics, Vol.3 Amsterdam:North Holland.
• Obstfeld, M. and Kenneth, R. (1996). Foundations of International Macroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
• Obstfeld, M. (2012, March). Does the Current Account Still Matter? NBER Working Paper No.17877.
• Perron, P. (1989). The Great Crash, The Oil Price Shock, and The Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica. 57(2). 1361-1401.
• Perron, P. (1997). Further Evidence on Breaking Trend Functions in Macroeconomic Variables. Journal of Econometrics. 80. 355-385.
• Sachs, J. (1981). The Current Account and Macroeconomic Adjustment in the 1970s. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity. 1. 201-282.
• Schneider, M. (2004). The Impact of Oil Price Changes on Growth and Inflation. Monetary Policy & The Economy. Q2/Q4. 27-34.
• Türkiye Petrolleri. (2016, May). Ham Petrol ve Doğalgaz Sektör Raporu.13-14.
• Zanghieri, P. (2004). Current Accounts Dynamics in New EU Members: Sustainability and Policy Issues. CEPII Working Paper. No. 07.
• Zivot, E. and Andrews, D. (1992, July). Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. 10/3. 251-270.