TELAFİ VE ETKİNLİK HİPOTEZLERİNİN RALS-EG EŞ-BÜTÜNLEŞME YAKLAŞIMI İLE TESTİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Küreselleşme ile birlikte artan dış ticaret, ekonomileri hem olumlu hem de olumsuz bir şekilde etkileyebilmektedir. Hükümetler ticari açıklık sebebiyle gerçekleşebilen dış şokları telafi edebilmek için kamu harcamalarını arttırmaktadır. Literatürde bu durum telafi hipotezi olarak nitelendirilmektedir. Etkinlik hipotezi ise telafi hipotezinin aksine kamu harcamalarının ve vergilerin rekabet avantajı sağlamak için azaltılacağını savunmaktadır. Bu çalışma Türkiye için 19612017 döneminde her iki hipotezin geçerliliğini test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada ticari açıklık toplam, ithalat ve ihracat olmak üzere üç farklı şekilde analize dahil edilmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen RALS-EG eş-bütünleşme testi ile ticari açıklık ve kamu büyüklüğü arasında uzun dönemli bir ilişkinin var olduğu belirlenmiştir. Dinamik en küçük kareler tahmincisi sonuçları ise ticari açıklıktaki ve ithalattaki artışların kamu büyüklüğünü arttırdığını, ihracat ile kamu harcamaları arasında ise herhangi bir ilişkinin bulunmadığını göstermektedir. Hükümet dış şoklara karşı kamu harcamalarını arttırarak telafi edici bir rol üstlenmektedir. Bu nedenle Türkiye’de telafi hipotezinin geçerli olduğu doğrulanmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Telafi Hipotezi,Etkinlik Hipotezi,Ticari Açıklık,RALS Eş-bütünleşme Testi

TESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE COMPENSATION AND EFFICIENCY HYPOTHESES WITH RALS-EG COINTEGRATION APPROACH: THE CASE OF TURKEY

Öz

Increasing foreign trade with globalization can affect the economies both positively and negatively. Governments increase their spending in order to compensate for external shocks that may arise from trade openness. This situation is described as a compensation hypothesis in the literature. Contrary to the compensation hypothesis, the efficiency hypothesis argues that government spending and taxes will be reduced to provide a competitive advantage. The aim of this study is to test the validity of the two hypotheses for Turkey covering the period of 1961-2017. Trade openness is included in the analysis in three different ways: total, imports and exports. The results of the RALS-EG co-integration test confirm the existence of long-run relationship between the trade openness and government size. The findings of the dynamic ordinary least square estimator show that increasing trade openness and imports increase the government size. It is also observed that there is no relationship between exports and government expenditures. The government plays a compensatory role by increasing government spending against external shocks. Therefore, compensation hypothesis is validated in the case of Turkey

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Compensation Hypothesis,Efficiency Hypothesis,Trade Openness,RALS Cointegration Test

Kaynakça

1. Abizadeh, Sohrab (2005), “An Analysis of Government Expenditure and Trade Liberalization”, Applied Economics, Cilt:37, Sayı:16, s.1881-1884.
2. Abounoori, Esmaiel ve Ghaderi, Saman (2011), “The Effect of Trade and Financial-Openness on Government Size: A Case Study for MENA”, International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, Cilt:2, Sayı:5, s.170-174.
3. Altay, Asuman ve Aysu, Ahmet (2013), “Etkinlik ve Telafi Edici Etki Hipotezi: Seçilmiş Ülkeler Üzerine Ampirik bir İnceleme”, TISK Akademi, Cilt:8, Sayı:15, s.131-154.
4. Aregbeyen, Omo ve Ibrahim, Taofik Mohammed (2014), “Trade Openness-Government Size Nexus: Compensation Hypothesis Considered for Nigeria”, Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, Sayı:3, s.364-372.
5. Aydogus, Ismail ve Topcu, Mert (2013), “An Investigation of Co-integration and Causality between Trade Openness and Government Size in Turkey”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Cilt:3, Sayı:2, s.319-323.
6. Benarroch, Michael ve Pandey, Manish (2012), “The Relationship between Trade Openness and Government Size: Does Disaggregating Government Expenditure Matter?”, Journal of Macroeconomics, Sayı:34, s.239-252.
7. Cameron, David R. (1978). “The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis”, American Political Science Review, Cilt:72, Sayı:4, s.1243-1261.
8. Ceylan, Servet ve Yılmaz Şahin, Burcu (2018), “Kamu Büyüklüğü Dışa Açıklık İlişkisinin Analizi: Türkiye Örneği”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, Cilt:25, Sayı:2, s.501-511.

9. Dickey, David A. ve Fuller, Wayne A. (1981), ‘‘Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root’’, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, Cilt:49, Sayı:4, s.1057-1072.
10. Dixit, Vikas (2014), “Relation between Trade Openness, Capital Openness and Government Size in India: An Application of Bounds Testing-ARDL Approach to Co-integration”, Foreign Trade Review, 49/1, 1-29.
11. Dreher, Axel, Sturm, Jan-Egbert ve Ursprung, Heinrich W. (2008), “The Impact of Globalization on the Composition of Government Expenditures: Evidence from Panel Data”, Public Choice, Cilt:134, Sayı:3, s.263-292.
12. Enders, Walter ve Lee, Junsoo (2012a), “A Unit Root Test Using a Fourier Series to Approximate Smooth Breaks”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Cilt:74, Sayı:4, s.574- 599.
13. Enders, Walter ve Lee, Junsoo (2012b), “The Flexible Fourier form and Dickey-Fuller Type Unit Root Tests”, Economics Letters, Cilt:117, Sayı:1, s.196-199.
14. Engle, Robert F. ve Granger, Clive W. J. (1987), “Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing”, Econometrica, Cilt:55, Sayı:2, s.251-276.
15. Engle, Robert F. ve Yoo, Byung Sam (1987), “Forecasting and Testing in Co-Integrated Systems”, Journal of Econometrics, Cilt:35, Sayı:1, s.143-159.
16. Gallant, Ronald (1981), “On the Basis in Flexible Functional form and an Essentially Unbiased form: The Flexible Fourier Form”, Journal of Econometrics, Sayı:15, s.211-353.
17. Gemmell, Norman, Kneller, Richard ve Sanz, Ismael (2008), “Foreign Investment, International Trade and the Size and Structure of Public Expenditures”, European Journal of Political Economy, Cilt:24, Sayı:1, s.151-171.
18. Im, Kyung So ve Schmidt, Peter (2008), “More Efficient Estimation under Non-normality When Higher Moments Do Not Depend on the Regressors, Using Residual-augmented Least Squares” Journal of Econometrics, Sayı:144, s.219-233.
19. Im, Kyung So, Lee, Junsoo. ve Tieslau, Margie A. (2014), More Powerful Unit Root Tests with Non-normal Errors, Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt, Springer, New York.
20. Jetter, Michael ve Parmeter, Christopher F. (2015), “Trade Openness and Bigger Governments: The Role of Country Size Revisited”, European Journal of Political Economy, Sayı:37, s.49-63.
21. Kapetanios, George, Shin, Yongcheol ve Snell, Andy (2003), “Testing for a Unit Root in the Nonlinear STAR Framework”, Journal of Econometrics, Cilt:112, Sayı:2, s.359-379.
22. Katircioğlu, Salih Turan ve Taşpinar, Nigar (2017), “Testing the Moderating Role of Financial Development in an Environmental Kuznets Curve: Empirical Evidence from Turkey”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Sayı:68, s.572-586.
23. Lee, Junsoo ve Strazicich, Mark Strazicich (2003), “Minimum LM Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Cilt:63, Sayı:4, s.1082-1089.
24. Lee, Hyejin, Lee, Junsoo ve Im, Kuyungso (2015), “More Powerful Cointegration Tests with Non-Normal Errors”, Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, Cilt:19, Sayı:4, s.397-413.
25. Leybourne, Stephen, Newbold, Paul ve Vougas, Dimitrios (1998), “Unit Roots and Smooth Transitions”, Journal of Time Series Analysis, Sayı:19, s.83-97.
26. Lin, Faqin, Li, Bing ve Sim, Nicholas S. (2014), “Trade Openness and Government Size of Small Developing Countries: An Instrumental Approach”, Economics of Transition, Cilt:22, Sayı:4, s.783-808.
27. Lumsdaine, Robin L. ve Papell, David H. (1997), “Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit Root Hypothesis”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Cilt:79, Sayı:2, s.212-218.
28. Mackinnon, James G. (1991), “Critical Values for Cointegration Tests”, in R. F. Engle and C. W. J. Granger (eds), Long-Run Economic Relationships. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
29. Mark, Nelson C. ve Sul, Donggyu (2003), “Cointegration Vector Estimation by Panel DOLS and Long-Run Money Demand”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Cilt:65, Sayı:5, s.655-680.
30. Molana, Hassan, Montagna, Catia ve Violato, Maro (2004), “On the Causal Relationship between Trade Openness and Government Size: Evidence from 23 OECD Countries”, University of Dundee. Discussion Paper no. 164.
31. Olawole, Kolawole Opeyemi ve Adebayo, Temidayo Oyeyemi (2017), “Openness and Government Size: The Compensation and Efficiency Hypotheses Considered for Nigeria”, MPRA, Paper No. 82022.
32. Perron, Pierre (1989). “The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock and the Unit Root Hypothesis”, Econometrica, Cilt:57, Sayı:6, s.1361-1401.
33. Rodrigues, Paulo M. ve Taylor, Am Robert (2012), “The Flexible Fourier Form and Local Generalised Least Squares De‐trended Unit Root Tests”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Cilt:74, Sayı:5, s.736-759.
34. Rodrik, Dani (1998), “Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?”, Journal of Political Economy, Cilt:106, Sayı:5, s.997-1032.
35. Schulze, Günther G. ve Ursprung, Heinrich W. (1999), “Globalisation of the Economy and the Nation State”, World Economy, Cilt:22, Sayı:3, s.295-352.
36. Sener, Sefer, Bayrakdar, Seda ve Hacioglu, Volkan (2015), “The Analysis for the Validity of Compensation and Efficiency Hypotheses in Turkey between 1975 and 2013”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Sayı:195, s.624-631.
37. Shahbaz, Muhammad, Rehman, Hafeez U. ve Amir, N. (2010), “The Impact of Trade and Financial-Openness on Government Size: A Case Study of Pakistan”, Journal of Quality and Technology Management, Cilt:6, Sayı:1, s.105-118.
38. Stock, James H. ve Watson, Mark W. (1993), “A Simple Estimator of Cointegrating Vectors in Higher Order Integrated Systems”, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, Cilt:61, Sayı:4, s.783-820.
39. Tash, Mohim Sheihaki, Khoramabadi, T. ve Laghab, S. Barani (2017), “The Relationship between Government Size and Trade Openness in Iran” International Business Management, Cilt:11, Sayı:2, s.375-380.
40. Taşar, İzzet (2016), “Türkiye’de Etkinlik ve Telafi Edici Etki Hipotezlerinin Geçerliliğinin Test Edilmesi”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt:6, Sayı:2, s.15-22.
41. Tuncer, Güner (2016), “Telafi Hipotezinin Türkiye’de Geçerliliği: Bölgesel Panel Veri Analizi”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı:48, s.144-154.
42. World Development Indicators (WDI) (2019), https://data.worldbank.org/country/turkey (18.03.2019).
43. Yılancı, Veli ve Aydın, Mücahit (2018), “Türkiye’de Kadın Okullaşmasının Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Rals-Eg Eşbütünleşme Testi Yaklaşımı”, Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Harun Terzi Özel Sayısı, s.101-112.
44. Zakaria, Muhammad ve Shakoor, Samreen (2011), “Relationship between Government Size and Trade Openness: Evidence from Pakistan”, Transition Studies Review, Cilt:18, Sayı:2, s.328- 341.
45. Zeren, Fatma ve Ergün, Suzan (2013), “Ticari Açıklık ve Kamu Büyüklüğü İlişkisi: Panel Nedensellik Testi”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt:27, Sayı:4, s.229- 240.
46. Zivot, Eric ve Andrews, Donald. (1992), “Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Cilt:10, Sayı:3, s.251-270.
47. Zortuk, Mahmut ve Beşer, Berna (2014), “Dışa Açıklık ve Demokratik Yapının Kamu Kesimi Büyüklüğü Üzerindeki Etkisi: Rodrık Hipotezine Geçiş Ekonomilerinden Kanıt”, Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, Cilt:14, Sayı:3, s.345-360.