BEŞERİ SERMAYEDE BİR YATIRIM OLARAK SAĞLIK OCAĞI SAYISINDAKİ DEĞİŞME VE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME ARASINDAKİ NEDENSELLİK TESTİ

Öz

1989-2001 dönemi Türkiyenin 67 ilinin fiziksel ve beşeri sermaye oranı K/H anlamında yatırım nitelemesi olarak değişen sağlık ocağı sayısı ve kişi başına düşen GSYİH arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi birim kök ve Granger nedensellik yöntemi ile test edilmiştir. Ilk olarak değişkenlerin entegrasyon düzeyini test etmekle başladık. Örneklememizin çoğu I 0 olması nedeni ile, olağan nedensellik testini uyguladık. Ancak, farklı derecelerde bütünleşme olan örneklemelerin geri kalanı için nedensellik testini uygulamadık. 8 il için ln K/H daki değişmeler büyümeye neden olur iken, 7 il için büyüme ln K/H ya neden olmaktadır. Diğer 17 il için ise döngüsel bir ilişki söz konusudur. Kişi başına GSYİH ve fiziksel ve beşeri sermaye yatırımları bağımsız olması nedeni ile, başka faktörlerin etkisi ile birlikte değişim göstermiş olabilirler. Farklı iller için iki değişken arasındaki ilişki çeşitlilik arz etmektedir. Son olarak, gelir seviyelerine bakarak yorumladığımızda çelişkili bir nedensellik durumu göze çarpmaktadır. Bu bulgulardaki zıtlıkların varlığı, büyüme ve yatırım arasındaki ilişkinin yanında ekonomik büyümeyi açıklamada başka faktörler önemli olabilir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• birim kök,ekonomik büyüme,fiziksel sermaye,sağlık göstergesi formunda beşeri sermaye,fiziksel ve beşeri sermaye arasındaki tamamlayıcılık ve Granger nedensellik

CAUSALITY TEST BETWEEN CHANGING IN NUMBER OF HEALTH CENTER FACILTIES AS AN INVESTMENT IN HUMAN CAPITAL AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

Öz

We have used unit root and granger causality test to verify the relationship between per capita GDP growth and changing in number of health center investment in terms of physical to human capital ratio for 67 provinces for the period 1989-2001. We first start testing the integration order of these variables. Since most of the samples are I 0 , we have used regular causality test for them. However, for the rest of the sample, the variables are in different order so there is no causality test for those. We have found that the growth is caused by changing in ln K/H for 8 provinces while changing in ln K/H is caused by growth for 7 provinces. For seventeen provinces, there is a bi-directional causality occurred. There is also no causality at all for 17 provinces. Since per-capita GDP growth and physical to human capital investment are interdependent, they might move together under the influence of other factors. It has been observed that the relation varies for different provinces. Lastly, there is mixed result about the causality direction about the income level. Since the findings of causality for provinces are contradictory, there are factors which may be important to explain economic growth besides growth and investment’s interactions

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Unit root,Economic growth,Physical capital,Human capital in the forms of health indicator,complementarities between physical and human capital and Granger causality

Kaynakça

1. Barro, Robert and Sala-i-Martin, X. S (1995) “Economic Growth” McGraw-Hill, Inc.
2. Benhabib, J and Spigel, M.M., (1994) “The role of human capital in economic development: evidence from cross- country data” Journal of Monetary Economics, 34, 143-173.
3. Blomstrom, M., R.E. Lipsey, and M. Zejan, (1996) “ Is Fixed Investment the Key to Economic Growth?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, pp. 269-276
4. Bulutay, T. (1995) “Yeni Büyüme Kuramları ve Büyüme, Kalkınma Konusuda Diğer Bazı Yaklaşımlar” Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı, ISBN 975-19-0986-4
5. De Georgia, (1996)”Borrowing constraint, human capital accumulations and growth” Journal of Monetary Economics 37, 49-71.
6. Erdil, E and Yetkiner, I. H., (2004), “Theory and Evidence on Income-Health Causality”, Applied Economics, Volume 41, Issue 4 February 2009 , pages 511 – 518
7. Fielding, D. (2001), “Why is Africa so Poor? A Structural Model of Economic Development and Income Inequality”, working paper, second draft, Department of Economics, University of Leicester.
8. Goetz, S. J. and Hu D. (1996) “Economic Growth And Human Capital Accumulation: Simultaneity And Expanded Convergence Test” Economics Letter, 51, 355-362.

9. Gülcan, Y. and Aldemir, C., (2008) “The Relationship Between Regional Economic Development and Local Culture: A Tale of Two Neighbouring Turkish Provinces” International Journal of Emerging and Transition Economies, Volume:1, Number:1, Page 15-31
10. Howden-Chapman, P. and O'Dea, D. (2001), “Income, Income Inequality and Health in New Zealand, n Dixon, Jane Meredith, Douglas, Robert Matheson, Eckersley, Richard (eds.) The Social Origins of Health and Well Being, Cambridge University Press:129-148.
11. Kalyoncu, K (2008) “An Assessment of the Effect of Health and Nutritional Quality on Worker Effort and Economic Growth Through Physical and Human Capital: Cross-Country and Turkish Evidence”. PhD Thesis in MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12609606/index.pdf
12. Kalyoncu, K. and Kalyoncu, H., (2009) “The Empirics of the Imbalance Effect: Per-capita Income and Human to Physical Capital Ratio”, The Empirical Economics Letters, Volume 8, Number 2, February
13. Nixon, J. (1999), “Convergence Analysis of Health Care Expenditure in the EU countries Using Two Approaches”, Discussion papers in Economics, no: 1999/03, The University of York.
14. Nonneman, W. and Vanhoudt, P (1996) “A further Augmentation Of The Solow Model And The Empirics Of Economic Growth For OECD Countries” Quarterly Journal Of Economics, August, 943-953
15. Rivera, B. and Currais, L. (1999) “Economic growth and health: direct impact or reverse causation?” Applied Economics Letter, 6, 761-764.
16. Sachs, J.D. and Brundtland, G.H. (2002) “Health and Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction” World Health Organization Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, Working Group 1.
17. Suhrcke, M., McKee, M., Arce R. S., Tsolova, S., and Mortensen, J., (2005) “The Contribution of Health to The Economy in The European Union” Health &Consumer Protection Directorate-General, European Communities, (http://europa.eu.int).
18. Tallman, E and Wang, P., (1994) “Human capital and endogenous growth evidence from Taiwan” Journal of Monetary Economics, 34, 101-124.
19. Thomas, D., (2001),”Health, Nutrition, and Economic Prosperity: A Microeconomic Perspective”, working paper, paper no. WG1:7, Commission on Macroeconomics and Health.
20. Von Zon, A. and Muysken, J. (2001), “Health and Endogenous Growth”, Journal of Health economics 20, pp: 169- 185.
21. Vural, B. M., (2007) “Kurumsal Koordinasyonun Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkileri” İşletme Fakülteleri Dergisi, Cilt:8, Sayı 1, sayfa:1-29
22. Wagstaff, A. (2001), “Poverty and Health”, Working Paper 3644, World Bank Policy Research, The World Bank, Washington DC, USA, Email: [e-mail].
23. Wagstaff, A. (2005), “The Economic Consequences of Health Shocks”, working paper, paper no. WG1:5, Commission on Macroeconomics and Health
24. Young, A., (1995) “The Tyranny of Numbers: Confronting The Statistical Realities of The East Asian Growth Experience” Quarterly Journal of Economies, August, 641-680.