Emek Verimliliğindeki Artış Ücretlere Yansıyor Mu? Seçili Ülkeler İçin Panel Veri Analizi

Öz

Ana akım iktisat teorisinde kâr maksimizasyonu hedefleyen firma, emeğin marjinal ürün değerinin ücrete eşit olduğu düzeye kadar işçi talep eder. Bu düzeye kadar her ilave işçi kendisine ödenen ücretten daha fazla getiriye yol açar. Buradan hareketle işçiye ödenen ücretin emeğin marjinal verimliliğine eşit olduğu düzeyde gerçekleştiği kabul edilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı ücretler ve verimlilik arasında iddia edildiği gibi bir ilişkinin olup olmadığını analiz etmektir. Bu amaçla ILO (2025) tarafından açıklanan emek verimliliği en yüksek on ülke içerisinden analizde kullanılan verileri mevcut olan yedi ülke (Avusturya, Belçika, Danimarka, İrlanda, Lüksemburg, Hollanda ve Norveç) için panel veri analizi yapılmıştır. 1996-2022 yılları arasını kapsayan analizde ortalama ücret ile emek verimliliği, yerel para birimi ile gayri safi yurtiçi hasıla, toplam faktör verimliliği, çoklu faktör verimliliği ve malzeme verimliliği arasındaki ilişki ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca çalışmada emek verimliliği ve ücret arasındaki ilişkinin uzun dönemde yönünü belirlemek adına LP2 ve LP3 de bağımsız değişkenler olarak modele eklenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda emek verimliliği ve ortalama ücret arasında pozitif; emek verimliliğinin karesi, toplam faktör verimliliği, çoklu faktör verimliliği, malzeme verimliliği ve yerel para birimiyle GSYİH ile ortalama ücret arasında ise negatif korelasyon bulunmuştur. Çalışma sonuçlarına göre verimlilik artışlarının ücretlere yansımadığı görülmüş ve elde edilen sonuçlardan hareketle politika önerileri yapılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Emek Verimliliği
• Ortalama Ücret
• Toplam Faktör Verimliliği
• Çoklu Faktör Verimliliği
• Malzeme Verimliliği
• Panel Veri Analizi
• Emek ve Ücret İlişkisi

Destekleyen Kurum

Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi

Proje Numarası

Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi BAP Birimi SBT 2025/4-LÜTEP projesi

Teşekkür

"Emek Verimliliğindeki Artış Ücretlere Yansıyor Mu? Seçili Ülkeler İçin Panel Veri Analizi" başlıklı makale, Sefa Koçyiğit’in, Doç. Dr. Yeliz Sarıöz Gökten danışmanlığında yürüttüğü "Kapitalizmin Başlangıcından Günümüze Emek: Emeğin Verimliliği ve Ücret İlişkisi" adlı yüksek lisans tezinden türetilmiş olup, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi BAP Birimi SBT 2025/4-LÜTEP projesi kapsamında desteklenmiştir. Desteklerinden dolayı Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi’ne ve BAP birimine teşekkür ederiz.

Does the Increase in Labor Productivity Reflect in Wages? Panel Data Analysis for Selected Countries

Öz

In mainstream economic theory, a firm aiming for profit maximization demands workers up to the point where the marginal product value of labor equals wages. Up to this point, each additional worker generates a return greater than the wage paid. Based on this, it is assumed that the wage paid to a worker is equal to the marginal productivity of labor. The aim of this study is to analyze whether there is a relationship between wages and productivity as claimed. For this purpose, panel data analysis was conducted for seven countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Norway) from among the ten countries with the highest labor productivity, as announced by the ILO (2025), for which data were available. The analysis, covering the years 1996-2022, examines the relationship between average wage and labor productivity, gross domestic product in local currency, total factor productivity, multifactor productivity, and material productivity. Additionally, LP2 and LP3 were added to the model as independent variables to determine the long-term direction of the relationship between labor productivity and wages. The analysis revealed a positive correlation between labor productivity and average wages; however, negative correlations were found between the square of labor productivity, total factor productivity, multifactor productivity, material productivity and GDP in local currency, and average wages. The study results indicate that productivity increases are not reflected in wages, and policy recommendations have been made based on these findings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Labor Productivity
• Average Wage
• Total Factor Productivity
• Multifactor Productivity
• Material Productivity
• Panel Data Analysis
• Labor and Wage Relationship

Proje Numarası

Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi BAP Birimi SBT 2025/4-LÜTEP projesi

Kaynakça

1. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3 ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. England.http://www.mysmu.edu/faculty/zlyang/DSA305_2024T2Web/BadiBaltagiBook2005.pdf ISBN-13 978-0-470-01456-1. (E.T. 10.11.25).
2. Baum, C. F. (2006). An introduction to modern econometrics using stata. Texas: A Stata Press Publication. https://abenkhalifa.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2006-stata.pdf ISBN-13: 978-1-59718-013-9. (10.11.25).
3. Breusch T. S. & A.R. Pagan (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287-1294. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963
4. Chudik, A., & Pesaran, M. (2015). Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 188(2), 393-420. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
5. Cruz, M. D. (2023). Labor productivity, real wages, and employment in OECD economies. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 66, 367-382. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.05.007
6. Dalal, D. K., & J. Zickar, M. (2012). Some common myths about centering predictor variables in moderated multiple regression and polynomial regression. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 339-362. doi:10.1177/1094428111430540
7. Dong, X., Hyslop, D., & Kawaguchi, D. (2024). Skill, productivity, and wages: direct evidence from a temporary help agency. Journal of Labor Economics, 42(S1), 133-181. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/728809
8. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549-560. doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646837

9. Eberhardt, M., & Teal, F. (2011). Econometrics for grumblers: a new look at the literature on cross-country growth empirics. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25, 109-155. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00624.x
10. Erumban, A., & de Vries, K. (2016). Wage-productivity growth gap: An analysis of industry data. In The Conference Board, Economics Program Working Paper (No. 16-01).
11. Fine, B. & A.S. Filho. (2004) Marx’s capital, Fourth Edition. Pluto Press London. ISBN-0 7453 2050 3.
12. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5 ed.). New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall. https://www.kufunda.net/publicdocs/William%20Greene%20-%20Econometric%20analysis.pdf ISBN 0-13-066189-9 (E.T. 12.10.25).
13. Guerriero, M. (2019). The labor share of income around the world: Evidence from a panel dataset. In Labor Income Share in Asia: Conceptual Issues and the Drivers, 39-79. Singapore: Springer Singapore. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7803-4_3
14. Harvey, D. (1976). Labor, capital, and class struggle around the built environment in advanced capitalist societies. Politics & Society, 6(3), 265-295. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/003232927600600301
15. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
16. Hicks, J. R. (1932). Marginal productivity and the principle of variation. Economica, (35), 79-88. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2548977
17. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The stata journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata, 7(3), 281-312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0700700301
18. Hsiao, C. (2014). Analysis of panel data. (W. K. Andrews, & J. C. Ely, Eds.) New York: Cambridge University Press. https://rodorigo.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/cheng-hsiao-analysis-of-panel-dataz-lib.org_.pdf (E.T. 25.11.25).
19. ILO, I. L. (2025). Statistics on labour productivity. ILOSTAT: https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/labour-productivity/ (E.T. 18.11.25).
20. Katovich, E. S., & Maia, A. G. (2018). The relation between labor productivity and wages in Brazil: a sectoral analysis. Nova Economia, 28(01), 7-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6351/3943
21. Koçak, E., & Uçan, O. (2023). Kripto para ticaretinin çevre kirliliği üzerine etkileri: panel veri analizi. Journal of Politics, Economy and Management (JOPEM), 6(2), 95-107.
22. Kosuliev, A. (2024). Do wages follow productivity? Evidence from European Countries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence. 18(1). 130-141. Sciendo. doi: 10.2478/picbe-2024-0011
23. Lochner, B., & Schulz, B. (2024). Firm productivity, wages, and sorting. Journal of Labor Economics, 42(1), 85-119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/722564
24. Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-652. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631.
25. Marshall, A. (2013). Principles of economics. Springer. Palgrave Press.
26. Marx, K., (1974). Capital, Vol. I Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. Translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, Edited by Frederick Engels, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
27. Marx, K. (1998). Artı Değer Teorileri I. Kitap. Sol Yayınları. Ankara.
28. Mavroudeas, S., & Ioannides, A. (2011). Duration, intensity and productivity of labour and the distinction between absolute and relative surplus-value. Review of Political Economy, 23(3), 421-437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2011.583833
29. Meloni, P. W., & Stirati, A. (2022). The decoupling between labour compensation and productivity in high‐income countries: Why is the nexus broken?. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 61(2), 425-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12713
30. Mishel, L., & Bivens, J. (2021). The productivity-median compensation gap in the United States: the contribution of increased wage inequality and the role of policy choices. International Productivity Monitor, (41), 61-97.
31. Mohammed, R. F. (2025). An economic analysis of the impact of labor productivity on the dynamics of total wages in Iraq for the period 1994–2021. Middle East Development Journal, 17(1), 129-137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17938120.2025.2482633
32. O'Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
33. OECD. (2026). OECD data explorer. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/ (E.T. 04.04.2026).
34. Our World in Data. (2026). https://ourworldindata.org/ (E.T. 04.04.2026).
35. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence. Institute for the Study of Labor IZA. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240. doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
36. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
37. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
38. Polanyi, K. (2001), The great transformation, the political and economic origins of our time, Beacon Press, Boston.
39. Robinson, J. (1967), Marginal productivity, Indian Economic Review, April, New Series, 2(1). s: 75-84
40. Salimova, G., Ableeva, A., Galimova, A., Bakirova, R., Lubova, T., Sharafutdinov, A., & Araslanbaev, I. (2022). Recent trends in labor productivity. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 44(4), 785-802. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2021-0111
41. Sarıöz-Gökten, Y. (2021). Are we in the same boat? Covid-19 and the working class in Turkey. In The Condition of the Working Class in Turkey: Labour Under Neoliberal Authoritarianism. Edith By Ç.E. Sahin & M.E. Erol. Pluto Books, 222-240. ISBN 978-0-7453-4312-9
42. Schröder, J. (2020). Decoupling of labour productivity growth from median wage growth in Central and Eastern Europe (No. 448). wiiw Research Report.
43. Schwellnus, C., Kappeler, A., & Pionnier, P. (2017). The decoupling of median wages from productivity in OECD countries. International Productivity Monitor, 32, 44-60.
44. Shaikh, A. (2018). Kapitalizm Rekabet, Çatışma, Bunalımlar. Çeviren Ümit Şenesen, Kırmızı Yayınları, İstanbul. ISBN 978-605-92452-1-0.
45. Sharpe, A., & Uguccioni, J. (2017). Decomposing the productivity-wage nexus in selected OECD countries, 1986-2013. International Productivity Monitor, 32, 25-43.
46. Škare, M., & Škare, D. (2017). Is the great decoupling real?. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(3), 451-467. doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1323793. Smith, A. (1852), An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, London.
47. Taylor, M. P., & Sarno, L. (1998). The behavior of real exchange rates during the post-Bretton Woods period. Journal of International Economics, 46(2), 281–312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(97)00054-8.
48. Taymaz, E., Voyvoda, E., & Yilmaz, K. (2024). Is there a virtuous cycle between wages and productivity? Turkish experience after the transition to democracy. World Development, 175, 106474.doi: https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106474.
49. Theodoropoulou, S. (2019). Convergence to fair wage growth? Evidence from European countries on the link between productivity and real compensation growth, 1970–2017. Working Paper 2019.07 European Trade Union Institute, 1-31.
50. UNEP, Global material flows database, https://www.resourcepanel.org/global-material-flows-database (E.T. 04.04.2026).
51. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. London, England: The MIT Press. https://ipcid.org/evaluation/apoio/Wooldridge%20-%20Cross section%20and%20Panel%20Data.pdf (E.T. 24.11.25).
52. World Bank. (2026), World Bank open data. https://data.worldbank.org/ (E.T. 04.04.2026).