THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GEOGRAPHY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES: EVIDENCE FROM PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

Öz

All countries aim to achieve stable economic growth. Geography is recognized as one of the main determinants of economic growth as it covers the advantages and disadvantages arising from the physical location of the country. For this reason, revealing the relationship between geography and economic growth can give an idea about the economic policies that can be implemented in terms of how to utilize the advantages or how to reduce the effects of disadvantages. In addition, analyses on the effects of geographical location, climate, natural resources and other geographical characteristics on economic growth help to understand the economy from a broad perspective. This study, using panel data analysis methods with data from 2001-2012, aims to empirically test the relationship between geography and economic growth among 79 countries classified at middle income level according to the World Bank income classification. In line with this objective, various empirical tests were carried out using panel data analysis method. The empirical analyses conducted within the scope of the study revealed that geographical factors are effective on economic growth. Therefore, the inclusion of geographical factors, which are generally ignored by neoclassical growth models, will provide an important perspective for economic growth studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geography
• economic geography
• economic growth
• middle-income level
• panel data analysis

ORTA GELİR DÜZEYİNDEKİ ÜLKELERDE COĞRAFYA VE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME İLİŞKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİNDEN KANITLAR

Öz

Bütün ülkeler istikrarlı bir ekonomik büyüme elde etmeyi amaçlamaktadırlar. Coğrafya, ülkenin fiziki konumundan kaynaklanan avantaj ve dezavantajları kapsadığı için ekonomik büyümenin temel belirleyicilerinden biri olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu nedenle coğrafya ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkilerin ortaya çıkarılması, avantajlardan nasıl yararlanılacağı veya dezavantajların etkilerinin nasıl azaltılacağı açısından uygulanabilecek ekonomi politikalarına dair fikir verebilir. Ayrıca coğrafi konum, iklim, doğal kaynaklar ve diğer coğrafi özelliklerin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkileri konusundaki analizler, ekonominin geniş bir perspektiften anlaşılmasına yardımcı olmaktadır. 2001-2012 yıllarına ait verilerle panel veri analizi yöntemleri kullanılarak yapılan bu çalışma, Dünya Bankası gelir sınıflandırmasına göre orta gelir düzeyinde sınıflandırılan 79 ülke arasında coğrafya ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi ampirik olarak test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu hedef doğrultusunda, panel veri analizi yöntemi kullanılarak çeşitli ampirik testler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında yapılan ampirik analizler coğrafi faktörlerin ekonomik büyüme üzerinde etkili olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu nedenle, genellikle neoklasik büyüme modelleri tarafından göz ardı edilen coğrafi faktörlerin analizlere dahil edilmesi, ekonomik büyüme çalışmaları açısından önemli bir perspektif sunacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Coğrafya
• ekonomik coğrafya
• ekonomik büyüme
• orta gelir düzeyi
• panel veri analizi

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. A. (2001). The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation. The American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369-1401.
2. Ades, A. and Chua, H. B. (1997). Thy Neighbor’s Curse: Regional Instability and Economic Growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 2(3), 279-304.
3. Altıntaş, H. and Mercan, M. (2015). AR-GE Harcamaları ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: OECD Ülkeleri Üzerine Yatay Kesit Bağımlılığı Altında Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi, SBF Dergisi, 70(2), 345-376.
4. Armstrong, H.W. (1995). Convergence Among Regions of the European Union, 1950–1990. Papers in Regional Science, 74(2), 143-152.
5. Ataklı Yavuz, R. (2016). Coğrafya ve Ekonomik Büyüme Ilişkisi: Panel Veri Analizi. Doktora Tezi, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi.
6. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 3rd Edition, Wiley, USA.
7. Barro, R. J. (1991). A Cross-Country Study of Growth, Saving, and Government. National Saving and Economic Performance. University of Chicago Press, 1991, 271-304.
8. Baumont, C. Ertur, C. and Le Gallo, J. (2003). Spatial Convergence Clubs and The European Regional Growth Process, 1980–1995. European Regional Growth, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 131-158.

9. Bivand, R. and Brunstad, R. (2006). Regional Growth in Western Europe: Detecting Spatial Misspecification Using the R Environment. Papers in Regional Science, 85(2), 277-297.
10. Bloom, D. E., Sachs, J. D., Collier, P. and Udry, C. (1998). Geography, Demography, And Economic Growth in Africa. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 207-295.
11. Breusch, T. S. and Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47: 239 – 253.
12. Carrington, A. (2003). A Divided Europe? Regional Convergence and Neighbourhood Spillover Effects. Kyklos, 56(3), 381-393.
13. Coe, D. T. and Helpman, E. (1995). International R & D Spillovers. European Economic Review, 5(39), 859-887.
14. Coe, D. T., Helpman, E. and Hoffmaister, A. W. (1997). North-South R&D Spillovers. Economic Journal, 107(440), 134-49.
15. Easterly, W. and Levine, R. (1998). Troubles with the Neighbours: Africa’s Problem, Africa’s Opportunity. Journal of African Economies, 7(1), 120-142.
16. Easterly, W. and Levine, R. (2003). Tropics, Germs, and Crops: How Endowments Influence Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 3-39.
17. Erataş, F., Başcı Nur, H. and Çınar, S. (2015). Para Arzının Post Keynesyen Yorumu: Gelişmiş Ülkeler Örneği. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3. (15), 398-409.
18. Frankel, J. A. and Romer, D. (1999). Does Trade Cause Growth? American Economic Review, 89(3), 379-399.
19. Gallup, J. L. and Sachs, J. D. (2000). Agriculture, Climate, and Technology: Why are The Tropics Falling Behind? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(3), 731-737.
20. Gallup, J. L. and Sachs, J. D. (2001). The Economic Burden of Malaria. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 64(1), 85-96.
21. Gallup, J. L., Sachs, J. D. and Mellinger, A. D. (1998). Geography and Economic Development. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. w6849.
22. Göçer, İ. (2013). Seçilmiş OECD Ülkelerinde Bütçe Açıklarının Sürdürülebilirliği: Yatay Kesit Bağımlılığı Altında Panel Eş–Bütünleşme Analizi. Journal of Yaşar University, 8(30), 5086-5104.
23. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric Analysis, Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458. Hall, R. E., and Jones, C. I. (1999). Why do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker Than Others? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83-116.
24. Hsiao, C. (2007). Panel data analysis—advantages and challenges. Test, 16(1), 1-22.
25. Keller, W. (2002). Geographic Localization of International Technology Diffusion. The American Economic Review, 92(1), 120-142.
26. Lall, S. V. and Yılmaz, S. (2001). Regional Economic Convergence: Do Policy Instruments Make a Difference? The Annals of Regional Science, 35(1), 153-166.
27. Lımao, N. and Venables, A. J. (2001). “Infrastructure, Geographical Disadvantage, Transport Costs, and Trade”, The World Bank Economic Review, 15.3, 451-479.
28. López-Bazo, E., Vayá, E., Mora, A. J. and Suriñach, J. (1999). Regional Economic Dynamics and Convergence in The European Union. The Annals of Regional Science, 33(3), 343-370.
29. Masters, W. A. and Mcmillan, M. S. (2001). Climate and Scale in Economic Growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 6(3), 167-186.
30. Mcarthur, J. W. and Sachs, J. D. (2000). Institutions and Geography: Comment on Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson. No. w8114, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2001.
31. Murdoch, J. C. and Sandler, T. (2002). Economic Growth, Civil Wars and Spatial Spillovers. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(1), 91-110.
32. Özgen, N. (2010). Bilim Olarak Coğrafya ve Evrimsel Paradigmaları. Aegean Geographical Journal, 19(2), 1-25.
33. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. No. 1240. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
34. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a Multifactor Error Structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
35. Pesaran, M. H. and Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 1(142), 50-93.
36. Radelet, S. and Sachs, J. (1998). Shipping Costs, Manufactured Exports, and Economic Growth. Erişim tarihi: 26.08.2015 <> Redding, S. and Venables, A. J. (2004). Economic Geography and International Inequality. Journal of international Economics, 62(1), 53-82.
37. Roberts, M. (2004). The Growth Performances of the GB Counties: Some New Empirical Evidence for 1977–1993. Regional Studies, 38(2), 149-165.
38. Rodrik, D. (2003). Institutions, Integration, and Geography: In search of The Deep Determinants of Economic Growth. In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Country Studies on Growth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1-30.
39. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A. and Trebbi, F. (2002). Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development, NBER Working Paper, No: 9305.
40. Sachs, J. D. (2000). Tropical Underdevelopment. Prepared for Economic History Association Annual Meeting, CID Working Paper, No. 57, December 2000. Available at http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidwp/057.ht
41. Sachs, J. D. and Warner, A. M. (1997) Fundamental Sources of Long-run Growth. The American Economic Review, 87(2), 184-188.
42. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, UK.