VARIABILITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN OIL PRICES: AN ANALYSIS ON OIL IMPORTING COUNTRIES

Öz

In this study had been included to analysis as 16 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the UK U.S.A.) most oil importing country by using data in between the years of 1986 and 2013. In the analysis, panel data method had been used and firstly homogeneity test that enables to test that slope coefficients are homogenous or heterogeneous for each country and cross sectional dependency tests that examine whether there is dependency between cross sections or not had been included. After panel unit root tests had been done, model had been guessed by Panel Dynamic SUR estimator. Later, causality tests had been applied for variables constituting the model. According to panel causality test results, two-way causality relation had been determined in between economic growth and commercial gap, employment rate, capital asset saving and world petroleum prices. When causality relation was examined in between oil import and economic growth, from oil import to growth one way causality relation had been determined. Finally, any causality relation had not been encountered in between carbon dioxide emission originating from oil consumption and economic growth.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Oil Prices,Economic Growth,Panel Data Analysis,Oil Importing Countries,Panel Dynamic SUR

PETROL FİYATLARINDA DEĞİŞKENLİK VE İKTİSADİ BÜYÜME: PETROL İTHAL EDEN ÜLKELER ÜZERİNE BİR ANALİZ

Öz

Bu çalışmada, 1986-2013 yılları arası yıllık veriler kullanılarak en çok petrol ithal eden 16 ülke (Avustralya, Brezilya, Kanada, Çin, Fransa, Almanya, Hindistan, Endonezya, İtalya, Japonya, Rusya, Güney Afrika, Güney Kore, Türkiye İngiltere ve A.B.D) analize dâhil edilmiştir. Analizde panel veri yöntemi kullanılmış olup ilk olarak eğim katsayılarının her bir ülke için homojen mi yoksa heterojen mi olduğunun test edilmesine imkân veren homojenlik testi ile yatay kesitler arasında bağımlılığın olup olmadığının test edildiği yatay kesit bağımlılığı testlerine yer verilmiştir. Panel birim kök sınamaları yapıldıktan sonra model Panel Dinamik SUR tahmincisi ile tahmin edilmiştir. Daha sonra modeli oluşturan değişkenler için nedensellik testleri uygulanmıştır. Panel nedensellik test sonuçlarına göre ekonomik büyüme ile ticari açıklık, ekonomik büyüme ile istihdam oranı, ekonomik büyüme ile sabit sermaye birikimi ve ekonomik büyüme ile dünya petrol fiyatları arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Petrol ithalatı ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi araştırıldığında ise petrol ithalatından büyümeye doğru tek yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Son olarak petrol tüketiminden kaynaklı karbondioksit salınımı ile ekonomik büyüme arasında ise herhangi bir nedensellik ilişkisine rastlanılmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Petrol Fiyatları,İktisadi Büyüme,Panel Veri Analizi,Petrol İthal Eden Ülkeler,Panel Dinamik SUR

Kaynakça

1. Abeysinghe, T. (2001), “Estimation of Direct and Indirect Impact of Oil Price on Growth”, Economic Letters 73 (2001):147-153.
2. Berument, M. H., Ceylan, N.B., ve Doğan, N. (2010), “The Impact of Oil Price Shocks on The Economic Growth of Selected MENA Countries”, The Energy Journal, Volume 31:149-176.
3. Blanchard, O. J, Gali, J. (2007), “The Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Price Shocks: Why are the 2000s so Different from the 1970s?”, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Working Paper: 13368:1-77.
4. Breusch, T.S. ve Pagan, A.R. (1980), “The Lagrange Multiplier test and its application to model specification in econometrics”, Review of Economic Studies 47, s.239-254.
5. Ghalayani, L. (2011), “The Interaction between Oil Price and Economic Growth”, Middle Eastern Finance and Economics, ISSN:1450-2889 Issue 13.
6. Hamilton, James, D. (1983), “Understanding Crude Oil Prices”, Working Paper 14492 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14492, s.1-44.
7. Hanabusa, Kunihiro (2009), “Causality Relationship between the Price of Oil and Economic Growth in Japan”, Energy Policy 37: 1953-1957.
8. Jayaraman, Tiru K. ve Lau E. (2011), “Oil Price and Economic Growth in Small Pacific Island Countries”, Modern Economy, Scientific Research, s.153-162.

9. Lardic, S. ve V. M. (2006), “Oil prices and economic activity: An asymmetric cointegration approach”, Energy Economics 34: 3910-3915.
10. Lardic, S. ve Mignon, V. (2008), “Oil Prices And Economic Activity: An Asymmetric Cointegration Approach”, Energy Economics 30 (2008), s.847–855.
11. Lienert, I. (1981), “The Macroeconomic Effects of the 1979/80 Oil Price Rise on Four Nordic Economies”, Wiley on behalf of The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 83, No. 2, s. 201-219.
12. Lorde, T., Jackman, M. ve Thomas, C. (2009), “The Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Price Fluctuations on a Small Open Oil-Producing Country: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago”, Energy Policy, 37(7): 2708-2716.
13. Mark, N.C., Ogaki, M. ve Sul, D. (2005), “Dynamic Seemingly Unrelated Cointegration Regression”, Review of Economic Studies, 72:797-820.
14. Miller, J. I., ve Rattı, R. A. (2009), “Crude oil and stock markets: Stability, instability, and bubbles”, Energy Economics, 31(4):559-568.
15. Narayan P.K., Sharma, S.S., Poon, W.C., ve Westerlund, J. (2014), “Do Oil Prices Predict Economic Growth? New Global Evidence”, Financial Econometrics Series SWP 2014/09.
16. Pesaran, M. Hashem ve Yamagata, T. (2008), “Testing slope homogeneity in large panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 142:50–93.
17. Pradhan, Rudra P., Arvin, Mak ve Ghoshray, A. (2015), “The dynamics of economic growth, oil prices, stock market depth, and other macroeconomic variables: Evidence from the G-20 countries”, International Review of Financial Analysis, 2015, vol. 39:84-95.
18. Yardımcıoğlu, Fatih ve Gülmez, A. (2013), “OPEC Ülkelerinde Hollanda Hastalığı: Petrol Fiyatları ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisinin Ekonometrik Bir Analizi”, Sosyoekonomi (Ocak-Haziran).
19. Yazdan, Gudarzi F., Ehsan Asghari G. ve Hosseın, Sadr, Seyed, M. (2012), “Is Cointegration between Oil Price and Economic Growth? Case Study Iran”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62:1215-1219.