İhracat ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: 12 Geçiş Ekonomisi Örneğinde Panel Eştümleşme ve Panel Nedensellik Analizleri

Öz

Bu çalışmada panel eştümleşme ve panel nedensellik analizleri kullanılarak on iki eski Sovyetler Birliği üyesi geçiş ekonomisi örneğinde ihracat ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Hammadde, enerji, tarım ürünleri veya maden ihracatı bu ülkelerin toplam ihracatının en önemli payını oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçları, ihracat artışının ekonomik büyümeye neden olmadığını, diğer bir ifadeyle bu ülkeler için ihracata dayalı büyüme hipotezinin geçerli olmadığını gösterir. Bulgular nedensellik ilişkisinin kısa ve uzun dönemde ekonomik büyümeden ihracat artışına doğru olduğunu desteklemektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İhracat, ekonomik büyüme, panel eştümleşme, panel nedensellik

Relationship between Export and Economic Growth: Panel Cointegration and Panel Causality Analysis in 12 Transition Economies Case

Öz

This paper uses panel cointigration and panel causality approaches to investigate relationship between export and economic growth in the case of twelve members of former Soviet Union transition economies. Export of raw materials, energy, agricultural products and mining materials constitute the major portion of total export of these countries. The findings indicate that there is not causality runs from export growth to economic growth. This suggests that export-led growth hypothesis is not supported for twelve transition countries. The study result indicates that economic growth contributes to export growth in short-run and long-run

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Export, economic growth, panel cointegration, panel causality

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, A., Cheng, E. ve Messinis G. (2007) “Causal Links between Export, FDI and Output: Evidence from Sub- Saharan African Countries” Center for Strategic Economic Studies Working Paper No. 35.
2. Ahmed, Q. M., Butt, M.S. ve Alam, S. (2000) “Economic Growth, Export, and External Debt Causality: The Case of Asian Countries” The Pakistan Development Review, 39(4): 591–608.
3. Al-Yousif, Y. K. (1999) “On the Role of Exports in the Eco- nomic Growth of Malaysia: A Multivariate Analysis” Inter- national Economic Journal, 13(3): 67-73.
4. Anwer, M. S. ve Sampath, R. K. (2000) “Exports and Eco- nomic Growth” Indian Economic Journal, 47(3): 79-88.
5. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Economidou, C. ve Goswami, G. G. (2005) “Export Led Growth Hypothesis Revisited: A Panel Cointegration Approach” Scientific Journal of Administrative Development, 3: 40-55.
6. Baltagi, B. H. (2005) Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third Edition, England, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
7. Bilgin, C. ve Şahbaz, A. (2009) “Türkiye’de Büyüme ve İhracat Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkileri” Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sos- yal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1): 177-198.
8. Din, M. (2004) “Exports, Imports, and Economic Growth in South Asia: Evidence Using a Multivariate Time-series Frame- work” The Pakistan Development Review, 43(2): 105-124.

9. Egeli, H. Avni, Kahyaoğlu, H. ve Egeli, P. (2010) “Fi- nansal Krizin Gelişmekte Olan Ülke Ekonomilerine Etki Mekanizmaları” Uluslararası Global Mali Kriz Konferansı, Mayıs 01-05, Kırgızistan.
10. Ekanayake, E. M. (1999) “Exports and Economic Growth in Asian Developing Countries: Cointegration and Error-Cor- rection Models” Journal of Economic Development, 24(2): 43-56.
11. Elbeydi, K. R.M., Hamuda, A. M. ve Gazda, V. (2010) “The Relationship between Export and Economic Growth in Libya Arab Jamahiriya” Theoretical and Applied Economics, 17(1): 69-76.
12. Erlat, H. (2006) Panel Data: A Selective Survey, Unpublished Lecture Notes, Department of Economics, Middle East Technical University.
13. Eusuf, M. A. ve Ahmed, M. (2007) “Causality between Ex- port and Growth: Evidence from South Asian Countries” MPRA Paper No. 21027.
14. Greene, W. H. (2000) Econometric Analysis, Fourth Edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
15. Halicioğlu, F. (2007) “A Multivariate Causality Analysis of Ex- port and Growth for Turkey” MPRA Paper No. 3565.
16. Holtz-Eakın, D., Newey, W. ve Rosen, H. S. (1988) “Estima- ting Vector Autoregressions with Panel Data” Econometrica, 56(6):1371–1395.
17. Hsiao, C. (2003) Analysis of Panel Data, Second Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
18. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. ve Shin, Y. (2003) “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels” Journal of Econometrics, 115(1): 53–74.
19. Jordaan, A. C. ve Eita, J. H. (2007) “Export and Economic Growth in Namibia: A Granger Causality Analysis” South African Journal of Economics, 75(3): 540-547.
20. Jordaan, A. C. ve Eita, J. H. (2007) “Testing the Export-Led Growth Hypothesis for Botswana: A Causality Analysis” University of Pretoria Department of Economics Working Paper, 20.
21. Keong, C. C., Yusop, Z. ve Liev, V. K. (2003) “Export-led Growth Hypothesis in Malaysia: An Application of Two- Stage Least Square Technique” International Finance EconWPA No. 0308002.
22. Konya, L. (2004) “Export-led Growth, Growth-driven Ex- port, Both or None? Granger Causality Analysis on OECD Countries” Applied Econometrics and International Develop- ment, 4(1): 73-94.
23. Kösekahyaoğlu, L. ve Şentürk, C. (2006) “İhracata Dayalı Büyüme Hipotezinin Testi: Türkiye ve Yedi Gelişen Ekono- miler Üzerine Bir İnceleme” Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi S.B.E. Dergisi, 2(4): 23-45.
24. Kunst, R. M. ve Marin, D. (1989) “On Exports and Produc- tivity: A Causal Analysis” Review of Economics and Statistics, 71: 699-703.
25. Levin, A., Lin, C. ve Chia-Shang J.C. (2002) “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties” Jo- urnal of Econometrics, 108: 1–24.
26. Lucas, R. E. (1988) “On the Mechanics of the Economic De- velopment” Journal of Monetary Economics, 22: 3-42.
27. Mamun, K. A. ve Nath, H. K. (2005) “Export-led Growth in Bangladesh: A Time Series Analysis” Applied Economics Let- ters, 12: 361-364.
28. Maddala, G. S. (2001) Introduction to Econometrics, Third Edi- tion, England, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
29. Maneschiöld, P. (2008) “A Note on the Export-Led Growth Hypothesis: A Time Series Approach” Cuadernos de Economía, 45: 293-302.
30. Marin, D. (1992) “Is the Export-Led Growth Hypothesis Valid for Industrialized Countries?” Review of Economics and Sta- tistics, 74: 678-688.
31. Medina-Smith, E. J. (2001) “Is the Export Led Growth Hy- pothesis Valid for the Developing Countries? A Case Study for Costa Rica” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Study Series Number 7.
32. Pandey, A. K. (2006) “Export and Economic Growth in India: Causal Interpretation” MPRA Paper No. 14670.
33. Pedroni, P. (1999) “Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61: 653–670.
34. Pedroni, P. (2004) “Panel Cointegration; Asymptotic and Fi- nite Sample Properties of Pooled Time Series Tests with an Application to the PPP Hypothesis” Econometric Theory, 20: 597–625.
35. Ramos, F. F. R. (2001) “Exports, Imports, and Economic Growth in Portugal: Evidence from Causality and Cointe- gration Analysis” Economic Modelling, 18: 613-623.
36. Romer, P. M. (1986) “Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth” Journal of Political Economy, 94(5): 1002-1037.
37. Sharma, A. ve Panagiotidis, T. (2004) “An Analysis of Exports and Growth in India: Cointegration and Causality Evi- dence (1971 - 2001)” Sheffield Economic Research Paper Series SERP No: 2003004.
38. Shirazi, N. S. ve Manap, T. A. A. (2005) “Export-Led Growth Hypothesis: Further Econometric Evidence from South Asia” The Developing Economies, 43(4): 472-88.
39. Stock, J. H. ve Waston, M. W. (2003) Introduction to Econo- metrics, Boston, USA, Addison-Wesley.
40. Şimşek, M. (2003) “İhracata Dayalı Büyüme Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi Verileri ile Analizi, 1960-2002” D.E.Ü. İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 18(2): 43-63.
41. Taban, S. ve Aktar, İ. (2008) “An Empirical Examination of the Export-led Growth Hypothesis in Turkey” Journal of Yasar University, 3(11): 1535-1551.
42. Ullah, S., Zaman, B., Farooq, M. ve Javid, A. (2009) “Coin- tegration and Causality between Exports and Economic Growth in Pakistan” European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2): 264-272.