Determination of Demand Regimes in Turkey and Brazil: Wage-led or Profit-led: A Post-Kaleckian Analysis

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine the demand regime of Turkey and Brazil based on the Hein and Tarassow (2010) model, the effect of income distribution inequality on capital accumulation and capacity utilization. The data of the study covers the years 1988-2019. This study estimates the savings rate, capital accumulation rate, net export rate and real exchange rate equations for both countries separately. The first of the estimation results of the study for the Turkish and Brazilian economies suggests that the effect of profit share on capacity utilization is negative in both countries. Accordingly, the economies of both countries support the Kaldor-Verdoorn Law. The other result is that the effect of profits on capital accumulation (marginal elasticity) is negative for Turkey and positive for Brazil. It is possible to explain the positive effect of wages on capital accumulation for Turkey with the Marx-Hicks effect. In conclusion, these empirical findings show that Turkey's demand regime is wage-led, while Brazil's demand regime is intermediate demand-led.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Income Distribution
• Demand Regime
• Capacity Utilization Rate
• Profit Share
• Capital Accumulation Rate

Teşekkür

Makalenin değerlendirme sürecinde, hakemlerin yapmış olduğu yapıcı katkılara teşekkür ederiz. Makaledeki tüm hata ve noksanlar bize aittir.

Türkiye ve Brezilya'da Talep Rejimlerinin Belirlenmesi: Ücret Çekişli mi Yoksa Kâr Çekişli mi: Post-Kaleckiyen Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, gelir dağılımı eşitsizliğinin sermaye birikimi ve kapasite kullanımı üzerine etkisini Hein ve Tarassow (2010) modelini temel alarak Türkiye ve Brezilya’nın talep rejimini belirlemektedir. Çalışmanın verileri 1988-2019 yılları arasını kapsamaktadır. Bu çalışma her iki ülke için tasarruf oranı, sermaye birikim oranı, net ihracat oranı ve reel döviz kuru denklemlerini ayrı ayrı tahmin etmektedir. Çalışmanın Türkiye ve Brezilya ekonomisi için tahmin sonuçlarından ilki, her iki ülkede de kâr payının kapasite kullanımı üzerindeki etkisinin negatif olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Buna göre her iki ülke ekonomisi de Kaldor- Verdoorn Yasası’nı desteklemektedir. Çalışmanın ikinci bulgusu, karların sermaye birikimi üzerindeki etkisinin (marjinal esneklik) Türkiye için negatif ve Brezilya için pozitif olduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye için ücretlerin sermaye birikimi üzerindeki olumlu etkisini Marx-Hicks etkisi ile açıklamak mümkündür. Sonuç olarak bu ampirik bulgular, Türkiye’nin talep rejiminin ücret çekişli olduğu, Brezilya’nın talep rejiminin ise ara talep rejimli olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gelir Dağılımı
• Talep Rejimi
• Kapasite Kullanım Oranı
• Kâr Payı
• Sermaye Birikim Oranı

Kaynakça

1. Amadeo, E. J.(1986b.). The Role Of CapacityUtilization in Long-Period Analysis. Political Economy, 2(2), 147-160.
2. Araújo, E., Gala, P., Bruno, M. (2012). Economic growth regimes in Brazil: empirical evidence and policy implications, Estudos Avançados, 26(75), 41-56.
3. Avram, A., Barna, F. M., Năchescu, M.L., Avram C.D. ve AvramR.L.(2020). Responsible Governance and the Sustainability of Populist Public Policies. The Implications of Wage-Led GrowthStrategy in Romania. Sustainability, 12(7), 2975.
4. Barbosa-Filho, N. and Taylor, L. (2006). Distributive and demand cycles in the US economy – a structuralist Goodwin model”, Metroeconomica 57(3), 389-411.
5. Bhaduri, A., S. Marglin.(1990). Unemployment and The Real Wage: The Economic Basis for Contesting Political İdeologies. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14(4):375-393.
6. Blecker, R. A. (1989). “International Competition, İncome Distribution And Economic Growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 13, 395–412.
7. Bowles, S., Boyer, R. (1995). Wages, Aggregate Demand, And Employment in an Open Economy: An Empirical Investigation. Macroeconomic Policy after the Conservative Era: Studies in Investment, Savingand Finance. Cambridge University Press, 143-171.
8. Bölükoğlu, A. (2019). Türkiye’nin Talep Rejimi: Post-Keynesyen Ekonometrik Bir Analiz. Sosyoekonomi,27(42), 163-180.

9. Caltandey ve Vernengo(2017).Wage-led, debt-led growth in an openeconomy. Review of KeynesianEconomics, 307:335.
10. Cassetti, M. (2003). Bargaining Power, Effective Demand and Technical Progress: A Kaleckian Model of Growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27, 449–464.
11. Carvalho, L. ve Rezai, A. (2016). Personal in come inequality and aggregate demand. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40:491-505.
12. Carvalho L.ve Rugitsky ,F. (2015). Growth and distribution in Brazil the 21st century: revisiting the wage-led versus profit-led debate, Department of Economics, 25:1-21.
13. De Jesus, C. S., Araujo, R. A., &Drumond, C. E. (2017). An empirical test of the Post-Keynesiangrowth model applied to functionalin come distribution and the growth regime in Brazil. International Review of Applied Economics, 32,428–449.
14. Duman, A. (2019). Türkiye’de Emeğin Değişen Payı ve Gelir Dağılımı. Çalışma ve Toplum, 1 (60), 349-370.
15. Dutt, A. K. (1984). Stagnation, Income Distribution and Monopoly Power. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8(1),25-40.
16. Dutt, A. K.(1987). Alternative Closures Again: A Comment On “Growth, Distribution and Inflation, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 11(1),75-82.
17. Gölçek, Ş. G ve Gölçek, A.G. (2020). 2008 Financial Crisis: A Comparative Analysis of Turkey and Brazil in Terms of Economic Policies. Journal of Economy Culture and Society,62,185-207.
18. Gülmez,A. (2015). Türkiye’de Dış Finansman Kaynakları Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Ardl Sınır Testi Yaklaşım. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(2),139-152.
19. Hartwig, J.(2014). Testing The Bhaduri–Marglin Model with OECD Panel Data. International Review of Applied Economics,28(4),419-435.
20. Hein, E., Vogel, L. (2007). “Distribution and Growth Reconsidered – Empirical Results for Six OECD Countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32 (3), 479-511.
21. Hein E. ve Tarassow A. (2010). Distribution, Aggregate Demand and Productivity Growth: Theory and Empirical Results for Six OECD Countries based on a Post-Kaleckian Model. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34,727-754.
22. Jetin, B. & O.E. Kurt (2016), Functional Income Distribution and Growth in Thailand: A post Keynesian Econometric Analysis. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 39(3), 334-360.
23. Kaldor, N.1957. A Model Of EconomicGrowth. Economic Journal, 67, 591–624.
24. Kalecki, M.1954. “Theory of Economic Dynamics: An Essay on Cyclical and Long-run Changes in Capitalist Economy, Rinehart&Company.
25. Kiefer, D. ve Rada, C. 2015.Profit Maximising Goes Global: The Race to the Bottom. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39,1333-1350.
26. Kurt, O.E. (2020). Functional Income Distribution, Capacity Utilization, Capital Accumulation and Productivity Growth in Turkey: A post-Kalecki Analysis. Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,71,734-766.
27. Lavoie, M., ve Stockhammer, E. (2013). Wage- led growth: Concepts, theories and policies. Palgrave Macmillan.13-39.
28. Lenger, A. (2019). Türkiye Ekonomisinin 2019 Krizi: Neo-Liberalizm, YapısalReformlar, Yeni Bağımlılık, vs. Mülkiye Dergisi, 43 (1), 271-284.
29. Manyeki, J.K. ve Kotosz,B. (2017). Empirical Analysis of the Wagner Hypothesis of Government Expenditure Growth in Kenya: ARDL Modelling Approach. Club of Economics in Miskolc, 13(2),45-57.
30. Marquetti, A.A., Hoff, C. ve Miebach A. 2020. Profitability and Distribution The Origin Of the Brazilian Economic and Political Crisis. Latin American Perspectives,230(47),115-133.
31. Mert,M. ve Çağlar, A.E. (2023).Eviews ve Gauss Uygulamalı Zaman Serileri Analizi, Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı.Detay yayıncılık.
32. Milanoviç, Branko. (2018). Küresel Eşitsizlik: Küreselleşme Çağı için Yen bir Yaklaşım, Elif Yayınları.
33. Naastepad, C.W.M., Storm, S. (2006-2007). OECD demand regimes (1960-2000). Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 29 (2),213-248.
34. Narayan, P.K. ve Narayan, S. (2005). “Estimatingin come and price Elasticities of Imports for Fiji in a cointegration framework. Economic Modelling 22, 423–438.
35. Oliveira, G. Ve Souza, E. P. (2017). “Wage- and profit-led growth regimes: A panel data approach”. Review of Keynesian Economics, 394–412.
36. Onaran, Ö. ve Obst T. (2016). Wage-Led Growth in The EU15 Member-States: The Effects Of İncome Distribution On Growth, İnvestment, Trade Balance And Inflation. Cambridge Journal of Economics,40, 1517-1551.
37. Onaran, Ö. ve Oyvat, C. (2015). The political Economy of Inequality, Redistribution and Boom-bustcycles in Turkey. Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre. Greenwich Papers in Political Economy, 1-49.
38. Onaran, Ö. ve Galanis, G. (2013). Wage-Led And Profit-Led Demand: National and Global Effects. Conditions of Work and employment Series, 40, 1-65.
39. Onaran, Ö., &Stockhammer, E. (2004). Accumulation, Distribution and Employment: a Structural VAR Approach to a Kaleckian Macro Model” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 15(4),421-447.
40. Onaran, Ö. ve Stockhammer, E. (2007). The effect of Distribution on Accumulation, Capacity Utilization, and employment: Testing the profit-led hypothesis for Turkey. Empirical Post Keynesian Economics, 277–304.
41. Orhangazi, Ö. ve Yeldan, E. (2021), The Re-making of theTurkish Crisis. Development and Change, 52(3), 460–503.
42. Oyvat, C., Öztunalı, O., & Elgin, C. (2020). Wage-led versusprofit-led demand: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Metroeconomica, 71, 458–486.
43. Pamuk, Ş. (2014). Türkiye’nin 200 yıllık iktisadi tarihi. Istanbul: Türkiye Is Bankasi Kültür.
44. Pesaran, M. H. ,Shin, Y. - Smith, J. R. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3),289-326.
45. Rowthorn, B. (1982) .Demand, Real Wages And EconomicGrowth, StudiEconomici, 18,3–54.
46. Sam, C. Y., McNown, R. ve Goh, S. K. (2019). An augmented autoregressive distributed lag bounds test for cointegration. Economic Modelling, 80, 130-141.
47. Steindl, J. 1952. Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
48. Stockhammer, E., Ederer, S. 2008. Demand effects of a falling wage share in Austria. Empirica, 35 (5), 481-502.
49. Stockhammer, E., Onaran, Ö. ve Ederer, S. (2009). Functional income distribution and aggregate demand in the Euro area. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33, 139–159
50. Stockhammer, E., Stehrer, R. (2011). Goodwin or Kalecki in Demand? Functional Income Distribution and Aggregate Demand in the Short Run. Review of Radical Political Economics,43 (4),506-522.
51. Stockhammer E. Ve Wildauer R.(2016). Debt-driven growth? Wealth, distribution and demand in OECD countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics , 40,1609–1634.
52. Taylor, L.: 1985. A stagnationist model of economic growth, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 9(4),83-403.
53. Teixeira, F.O., Missio, F.J. ve Dathein, R. (2022). Distribution and demand in Brazil: empirical evidence from the structural and aggregative approaches. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 45(4),581-611.
54. Tomio, Bruno Thiago. (2020). Understanding the Brazilian Demand Regime: A Kaleckian Approach. Review of Keynesian Economics 8 (2),287–302.
55. Weeks, J. (2006). Latin Amerika’da ihracat, yabancı yatırım ve büyüme: simülasyon yöntemiyle şüpheci bir yaklaşım. İktisadi Kalkınma, Kriz ve İstikrar , Istanbul: Iletisim, 125-152.
56. Yalçın E. (2008). Brezilya ve Türkiye ekonomilerinin benzerliği: gerçek mi yanılsama mı?.Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası İletişim ve Dış İlişkiler Genel Müdürlüğü, Uzman Yeterlilik Tezi, Ankara.
57. Yeldan, Erinç (2023), AKP Dönemi Türkiye’sinin Bölüşüm Deseni Üzerine Gözlemler. İktisat ve Toplum, 148, Şubat