Ekonomik Büyümenin Sektörel Belirleyicilerinin İş Gücü Açısından Değerlendirilmesi: Panel Veri Analizi

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 1008 - 1025, 30.10.2023

Caner Dilber

https://doi.org/10.18074/ckuiibfd.1310028

Öz

İş gücü verimliliğinin en önemli göstergelerinden biri şüphesiz üretilen mal ve hizmetlerin reel değeridir. Yüksek iş gücü verimliliğine sahip ülkeler uluslararası ticarette her zaman rekabet avantajını da ellerinde tutacaklardır. Üç temel sektör olarak değerlendirilen tarım, hizmet ve sanayi sektörlerinde çalışan iş gücünün reel hâsıla üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmak verimliliklerinin karşılaştırılması açısından önemli bir gösterge olabilir. Bu çalışmada 153 ülke için tarım, hizmet ve sanayi sektöründe çalışan işgücünün reel hasıla üzerindeki etkisi panel veri analizleri ile incelenmiştir. Yatay kesit bağımlılığı, birim kök, homojenite ve eşbütünleşme testlerinden sonra panel AMG (Augmented Mean Group) modeli kullanılarak tahminler yapılmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre tarım sektöründe çalışanların toplam çalışanlar içindeki oranı %1 arttığında reel GSYH’nın parasal değeri %0,13 azalmaktadır. Diğer taraftan sanayi sektöründe çalışanların toplam çalışanlar içindeki oranı %1 arttığında ise reel GSYH’nın parasal değeri %0,34 artmaktadır. Hizmet sektörü için kurulan modelde ise istatistiki olarak anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilememiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sektörel istihdam, ekonomik büyüme, iş gücü, panel veri analizi

Evaluation of the Sectoral Determinants of Economic Growth in terms of the Labour Force: Panel Data Analysis

Öz

One of the most important indicators of labor productivity is undoubtedly the real value of the goods and services produced. Countries with high labor productivity will always retain their competitive advantage in international trade. Investigating the effects of the labor force working in the agriculture, service and industry sectors, which are considered as three main sectors, on real output can be an important indicator in terms of comparing their productivity. In this study, the effect of labor force working in agriculture, service and industry sectors on real output for 153 countries was examined by panel data analysis. After the cross-section dependence, unit root, homogeneity and cointegration tests, predictions were made using the panel AMG (Augmented Mean Group) model. According to the results of the analysis when the ratio of the workers in the agricultural sector to the total workers increases by 1% the monetary value of real GDP decreases by 0.13%. On the other hand, when the ratio of workers in the industrial sector to total workers increases by 1%, the monetary value of real GDP increases by 0.34%. A statistically significant relationship was not determined in the model established for the service sector.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sectoral employment, economic growth, labor, panel data analysis

Kaynakça

• Aghion, P. ve Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60 (2), 323-351.
• Akcan, M. B. ve Azazi, H. (2022). İstihdam oluşturmayan büyümenin sektörel analizi: Türkiye örneği. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 20(1), 227-246.
• Alhowaish, A. K. (2014). Does the service sector cause economic growth? Empirical evidence from Saudi Arabia. Global Studies Journal, 7(2), 1-6.
• Altun, Y. ve İşleyen, Ş. (2019). Türkiye’de iktisadi büyüme ile sanayi sektöründe istihdam arasındaki ilişkinin ardl sınır testi yaklaşımı ile ekonometrik analizi: 1991-2017. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (17), 657-676.
• Altuntepe, N. ve Güner, T. (2013). Türkiye'de istihdam-büyüme ilişkisinin analizi (1988-2011). Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 73-84.
• Arısoy, İ. (2013). Kaldor yasası çerçevesinde Türkiye’de sanayi sektörü ve iktisadi büyüme ilişkisinin sınanması. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 143-162.
• Ateşoğlu, H.S. (1993). Manufacturing and economic growth in the United States. Applied Economics, 25, 67-69.
• Awokuse, T. O. ve Xie, R. (2015). Does agriculture really matter for economic growth in developing countries?. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 63(1), 77-99.
• Bairam, E. (1991). Economic growth and Kaldor’s law: The case of Turkey. Applied Economics, 23, 1277-1280.
• Bakari, S. ve Mabrouki, M. (2018). The impact of agricultural trade on economic growth in North Africa: Econometric analysis by static gravity model. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 1-14.
• Bekun, F. V. (2015). The Contribution of agricultural sector on the economic growth of Nigeria (Master's thesis), Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)
• Blomquist, J. ve Westerlund, J. (2013). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with serial correlation. Economics Letters, 121(3), 374-378.
• Chenery, H. B. (1960). Patterns of industrial growth. American Economic Review, 50(4), 624-654. Dünya Bankası, (n.d.). [Veri seti]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator, (Erişim Tarihi:17 Şubat 2023)
• Eberhardt, M. ve Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: A novel estimator. MPRA Paper 17692.
• Eberhardt, M. ve Teal, F. (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production. Discussion Paper 515, Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
• Fagerberg J. ve Verspagen, B. (1999). Modern capitalism in the 1970s and 1980s. in Growth, employment and inflation (113-126). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Fan, J. Liao, Y. ve Yao, J. (2015). Power enhancement in high-dimensional cross-sectional tests. Econometrica (83), 1497–1541.
• Furtado, C. (1967). Development and underdevelopment. California: Universty of California Press. Grossman, G. M. ve Helpman, E. (1991). Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. European Economic Review, 35(2-3), 517-526.
• Gudeman, S. F. (1980). Physiocracy: a natural economics. American Ethnologist, 7(2), 240-258.
• Hansen, J. ve Zhang, J. (1996). A Kaldorian approach to regional economic growth in China. Applied Economics, 28(6), 679-685.
• Hirschman A. O. (1958). The strategy of economic development. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
• Juodis, A. ve Reese, S. (2021). The incidental parameters problem in testing for remaining cross-section correlation. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 40(3), 1191-1203.
• Kaldor, N.(1966). Causes of the slow rate of growth of the United Kingdom: An inaugural lecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Khan, A.D., Ahmed, S. S. ve Ahmed, E. (2012). Agriculture and economic growth: empirical evidence from pakistan. 2. International Multidisciplinary Conference towards Better Pakistan, (pp. 1-6). Pakistan.
• Kök, R. (1991). Endüstriyel verimlilik ve etkinlik. Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi Basımevi.
• Kuznets, S. (1966). Modern economic growth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. The economics of underdevelopment (400-449).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mamgain, V. (1999). Are the Kaldor–Verdoorn laws applicable in the newly industrializing countries? Review of Development Economics, 3(3), 295-309.
• Millin, M. ve Nichola, T. (2005). Explaining economic growth in South Africa: A Kaldorian Approach. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 4 (1), 47-62.
• Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. New York: Harper and Row.
• Nurkse, R. (1953). Problems of capital formation in underdeveloped countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Özgün, F. (2023). Türkiye’de hizmetler sektörü istihdamı ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 9(1), 69-93.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econometric Reviews, 34(6-10), 1089-1117.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60, 13-50.
• Pesaran, M. H. ve Xie, Y. (2021). A bias-corrected CD test for error cross-sectional dependence in panel data models with latent factors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00408.
• Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
• Pesaran, H. M. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265–312.
• Poonyth, D., Hassan, R., Kirsten, J. ve Calcaterra, M. (2001). Is agricultur sector growth a precondition for economic growth? The case os Sounth Africa. Agrekon, 40(2), 269-279.
• Prebisch, R. (1962). The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems. Economic Bulletin for Latin America, 7(1).
• Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of political Economy, 98 (5, Part 2), S71-S102.
• Safdar, I., Maqsood, S. ve Ullah, S. (2012). Impact of agriculture volatility on economic growth: A case study of Pakistan. Journel Asian Development Study, 1(2), 24-34.
• Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94.
• Szirmai, A. (2012). Industrialization as an engine of growth in developing countries, 1950-2005. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23 (4), 406-20.
• Szirmai, A. ve Verspagen, B. (2015). Manufacturing and economic growth in developing countries, 1950–2005. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 34, 46-59.
• Tandrayen-Ragoobur, V. (2010). The services sector and economic growth in Mauritius. A bounds testing approach to cointergration. University of Mauritius Research Journal, 16, 313-331.
• Üçler, Y. T. (2022). Türkiye’de sektörler itibari ile istihdam büyüme ilişkisi. Pearson Journal, 7(21), 148-160.
• Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748.