Regional income inequality and trade openness in Türkiye: A spatial econometric analysis

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 27 Sayı: Özel Sayı , 20 - 34 , 19.03.2025

Abdullah Bahadır Şaşmaz

https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1594449

Cited By: 2

https://izlik.org/JA97HS32FB

Öz

This study examines the relationship between regional inequality and trade openness in Türkiye’s 26 NUTS-II regions from 2014 to 2022, employing spatial panel data models. Using the GINI coefficient as a measure of inequality, the analysis explores the influence of trade openness, labor force participation, population density, and average years of schooling per capita. Results indicate that trade openness has a significant negative impact on inequality, highlighting its role in reducing regional disparities through enhanced market access and economic opportunities. However, the labor force participation rate exhibits a marginally positive relationship with inequality, potentially reflecting disparities in job quality and access to skilled employment. Population density emerges as a key driver of inequality, with densely populated regions experiencing greater income disparities due to urbanization and economic concentration effects. Surprisingly, the average years of education do not significantly influence inequality, which may result from unequal access to quality education or its limited translation into equitable economic opportunities. The study also identifies significant spatial dependencies, with regional inequality influenced by conditions in neighboring regions. These findings emphasize the need for tailored policies addressing both local and interregional dynamics to reduce inequality effectively.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Income Inequality , Trade Openness , Spatial Panel Data Analysis , Regional Economics

Türkiye'de bölgesel gelir eşitsizliği ve ticaret açıklığı: Mekânsal ekonometrik analiz

https://izlik.org/JA97HS32FB

Öz

Bu çalışma, 2014-2022 yılları arasında Türkiye'nin 26 NUTS-II bölgesindeki bölgesel eşitsizlik ve ticaret açıklığı arasındaki ilişkiyi mekânsal panel veri modelleri kullanarak incelemektedir. Eşitsizliğin bir ölçüsü olarak GINI katsayısını kullanan analiz, ticaret açıklığının, iş gücüne katılımın, nüfus yoğunluğunun ve kişi başına düşen ortalama okullaşma yılının etkisini araştırmaktadır. Sonuçlar, ticaret açıklığının eşitsizlik üzerinde önemli bir olumsuz etkiye sahip olduğunu ve gelişmiş piyasa erişimi ve ekonomik fırsatlar yoluyla bölgesel eşitsizlikleri azaltmadaki rolünü vurguladığını göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, iş gücüne katılım oranı eşitsizlikle marjinal düzeyde olumlu bir ilişki göstermektedir ve potansiyel olarak iş kalitesindeki ve vasıflı istihdama erişimdeki eşitsizlikleri yansıtmaktadır. Nüfus yoğunluğu, kentleşme ve ekonomik konsantrasyon etkileri nedeniyle yoğun nüfuslu bölgelerin daha büyük gelir eşitsizlikleri yaşamasıyla eşitsizliğin temel bir itici gücü olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Şaşırtıcı bir şekilde, ortalama eğitim yılı eşitsizliği önemli ölçüde etkilememektedir ve bu, kaliteli eğitime eşitsiz erişimden veya bunun adil ekonomik fırsatlara sınırlı şekilde dönüştürülmesinden kaynaklanabilir. Çalışma ayrıca, bölgesel eşitsizliğin komşu bölgelerdeki koşullardan etkilendiği önemli mekânsal bağımlılıklar olduğunu da tespit etmektedir. Bu bulgular, eşitsizliği etkili bir şekilde azaltmak için hem yerel hem de bölgeler arası dinamikleri ele alan özel politikalara olan ihtiyacı vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gelir Eşitsizliği , Ticaret Açıklığı , Mekansal Panel Veri Analizi , Bölgesel İktisat

Kaynakça

• Acemoglu, D. (2002). Technical change, inequality, and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(1), 7–72. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051026976
• Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
• Akçagün, P. (2017). Provincial growth in Turkey: A spatial econometric analysis. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 10, 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-016-9183-5
• Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Springer.
• Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2008). Trends in U.S. wage inequality: Revising the revisionists. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(2), 300–323. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.2.300
• Barro, R. J. (2000). Inequality and growth in a panel of countries. Journal of Economic Growth, 5, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009850119329
• Baltagi, B. H., Song, S. H., & Koh, W. (2003). Testing panel data regression models with spatial error correlation. Journal of Econometrics, 117(1), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00120-9
• Belotti, F., Hughes, G., & Mortari, A. P. (2017). Spatial panel-data models using Stata. The Stata Journal, 17(1), 139–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1701700109
• Blomström, M., Kokko, A., & Zejan, M. (2000). Foreign direct investment: Firm and host country strategies. Macmillan Press.
• Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1287–1294. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963
• Celebioglu, F. (2020). Spatial spillover effects of mega-city lockdown due to Covid-19 outbreak: Evidence from Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 13(26), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.17015/ejbe.2020.026.05
• Debarsy, N., & Ertur, C. (2010). Testing for spatial autocorrelation in a fixed effects panel data model. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 40(6), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.06.001
• Demirci, B., & Tatoğlu, F. Y. (n.d.). Türkiye’de bölgesel işsizliğin belirleyicilerinin mekânsal panel veri modelleriyle analizi. İstatistik Araştırma Dergisi, 14(2), 1–13.
• Dincsoy, E. E., & Ichiminami, F. (2006). Regional inequalities among NUTS level-1 regions and solution efforts of Turkey. Journal of the Faculty of Environmental Science and Technology, 11(1), 65–74. http://doi.org/10.18926/fest/11435
• Doğan, T., & Kındap, A. (2019). Regional economic convergence and spatial spillovers in Turkey. International Econometric Review, 11(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.33818/ier.448603
• Doğaner, A. (2022). Analysis of the relationship between economic growth and housing demand for Türkiye with spatial panel econometrics approach. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 7(2), 214–223.
• Doğruel, F. (2006). Türkiye’de bölgesel politikalar. In A. Eraydın (Ed.), Değişen Türkiye, dönüşen mekan (pp. 164–195). Dost Kitapevi Yayınları.
• Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2002). Growth is good for the poor. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(3), 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020139631000
• Duran, H. E., & Erdem, U. (2017). Regional inequality and international trade in Turkey: A dynamic spatial panel approach. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 14(3), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2017.24633
• Duran, H. E., Karabakan, B., & Doğan, F. (2024). Socio-economic and development disparities over the long-run: Exploring spatial heterogeneities in the case of Turkey. Regional Statistics, 14(4), 743–767.
• Elburz, Z., & Cubukcu, K. M. (2021). Spatial effects of transport infrastructure on regional growth: The case of Turkey. Spatial Information Research, 29(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-020-00332-y
• Elhorst, J. P. (2003). Specification and estimation of spatial panel data models. International Regional Science Review, 26(3), 244–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017603253791
• Elhorst, J. P. (2014). Spatial econometrics: From cross-sectional data to spatial panels. Springer.
• Elveren, A. Y. (2010, March). Wage inequality in Turkey: Decomposition by statistical regions, 1980–2001. In Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies: Journal of the Applied Regional Science Conference (Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 55–72). Melbourne, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Asia. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-940X.2010.00169.x
• Eralp, A. (2023). Türkiye sanayi sektöründeki elektrik tüketimi ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkinin mekânsal analizi. Verimlilik Dergisi, 99–112. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1111823
• Gezici, F. (2006). New regional definition and spatial analysis of regional inequalities in Turkey related to the regional policies of EU. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 12(1), 103–124.
• Gezici, F., & Hewings, G. J. (2007). Spatial analysis of regional inequalities in Turkey. European Planning Studies, 15(3), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310601017091
• Glaeser, E. L., Resseger, M., & Tobio, K. (2009). Inequality in cities. Journal of Regional Science, 49(4), 617–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2009.00627.x
• González Rivas, M. (2007). The effects of trade openness on regional inequality in Mexico. The Annals of Regional Science, 41, 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-006-0099-x
• Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and growth in the global economy. MIT Press.
• Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1251–1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
• İğdeli, A. (2020). A spatial econometric analysis on the determinants of regional housing demand. Bingöl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.33399/biibfad.754293
• Kanbur, R., & Venables, A. J. (Eds.). (2005). Spatial inequality and development. OUP Oxford.
• Karaalp-Orhan, H. S. (2020). Regional disparities in Turkey: A socio-economic perspective. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(3), 103. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n3p103
• Karahasan, B. (2015). Regional inequalities in Turkey: Post 2001 era. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 37(1), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.14780/iibd.83419
• Karahasan, B. C., & Pinar, M. (2022). The environmental Kuznets curve for Turkish provinces: A spatial panel data approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(17), 25519–25531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17706-w
• Kelejian, H. H. (2008). A spatial J-test for model specification against a single or a set of non-nested alternatives. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 1, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-008-0001-9
• Koç, A. A., Yu, T. E., Kıymaz, T., & Sharma, B. P. (2019). Effects of government supports and credits on Turkish agriculture: A spatial panel analysis. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 9(4), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-11-2018-0164
• Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1086/261763
• Krugman, P., & Venables, A. J. (1995). Globalization and the inequality of nations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(4), 857–880. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946642
• Krusell, P., Ohanian, L. E., Ríos‐Rull, J. V., & Violante, G. L. (2000). Capital‐skill complementarity and inequality: A macroeconomic analysis. Econometrica, 68(5), 1029–1053. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00150
• LeSage, J., & Pace, R. K. (2009). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
• Lipsey, R. E. (2002). Home and host country effects of FDI. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 9293. https://doi.org/10.3386/w9293
• Ondes, H., & Kizilgol, O. A. (2020). Türkiye'de iç göçü etkileyen faktörler: Mekânsal panel veri analizi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 11(2), 353–369.
• Orhan, H. S. K., & Gülel, F. E. (2016). Regional unemployment in Turkey: A spatial panel data analysis. Journal of Social Security, 6(2), 47–67.
• Ratner, B. (2009). The correlation coefficient: Its values range between +1/−1, or do they? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 17(2), 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.5
• Republic of Türkiye Ministry of National Defence. (2024, September 10). Province and district area measurements. General Command of Mapping. https://www.harita.gov.tr/il-ve-ilce-yuzolcumleri
• Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 461–464.
• Stolper, W. F., & Samuelson, P. A. (1941). Protection and real wages. The Review of Economic Studies, 9(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967638
• Tatlı, S., & Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2022). Spatial econometric models and the analysis of the determinants of internal migration in Turkey. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, (36), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.36.995797
• Terzioğlu, M. K. (2013). Interactions of benchmark interest rate, foreign trade volume, and domestic debt stock. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 13(26), 55–76.
• Terzioğlu, M. K., Akın, Y. K., & Doğangün, A. (2015). Effects of economic indicators on employment phenomena. Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 93–116.
• Terzioğlu, M. K., Yücel, M. A., Demirkıran, S., & Acaroğlu, D. (2020). Kentsel inovasyonun kentleşme üzerine mekânsal etkisi. İdealkent, 11(30), 592–620. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.683583
• Topalova, P. (2010). Factor immobility and regional impacts of trade liberalization: Evidence on poverty from India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(4), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.2.4.1
• Tunay, K. B., & Silpagar, A. M. (2007). Dinamik mekan-zaman panel veri modelleriyle Türkiye’de bölgesel enflasyon yakınsamasının analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 1–27.
• Turkstat. (2024, September 10). Data portal for statistics. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/
• Ustaoğlu, E. (2024). Using night-time lights and statistical data to measure regional inequality in Turkey. In Recent Developments in Financial Management and Economics (pp. 199–233). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2683-1.ch012
• Winters, L. A. (2004). Trade liberalisation and economic performance: An overview. The Economic Journal, 114(493). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2004.00185.x
• Wood, A. (1994). North-south trade, employment and inequality: Changing fortunes in a skill-driven world. Oxford University Press.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.
• Yıldırım, J., Öcal, N., & Özyıldırım, S. (2009). Income inequality and economic convergence in Turkey: A spatial effect analysis. International Regional Science Review, 32(2), 221–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017608331250
• Yıldırım, V., & Kantar, Y. M. (2020). Spatial analysis of the road traffic accident statistics in the provinces of Turkey. SIGMA Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 38(4), 1667–1680.
• Yücel, M. A., & Terzioğlu, M. K. (2022). Türkiye ve Avrupa bölgesinde eko-verimlilik: Dinamik mekânsal panel veri yaklaşımı. Verimlilik Dergisi, (4), 569–584. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.934024
• Yücel, M. A., & Terzioğlu, M. K. (2023). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve eko-inovasyon: Dinamik mekânsal etkileşim. Verimlilik Dergisi, 171–186. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1103725