Analysis of the Impact Of Turkey’s Income, Inflation and Interest Rates on Consumption in the 1987-2019 Period

Öz

Consumption, which constitutes an integral part of GDP, is an essential indicator of welfare. The increase in GDP leads to an increase in consumer spending. This study aims to explain the relationship between consumption and income first theoretically and then empirically. Further basic macroeconomic variables such as income, inflation and interest rates were studied to determine the effect and impact on consumption. A unit root test was utilised as a method in the study, and then a vector autoregressive model was used to determine the statistical significance of the measured coefficients. Following that, the co-integration analysis was used. In addition, to determine the direction of causation between variables, the Granger causality test was utilised. Furthermore, the research was conducted utilising annual data spanning the years 1987 to 2019. Based on the data obtained from the World Bank, the relationship between consumption and income was analysed by checking the inflation and interest variables. According to the results of the research, it can be seen that in Turkey, the relationship between income and consumption is positive, while consumption and the periods’ consumption and interest have been determined as negative.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• consumption
• Turkey
• Keynesian theory
• var analysis

Türkiye’nin 1987-2019 Dönemindeki Gelir, Enflasyon ve Faiz Oranlarının Tüketim Üzerine Etkisine Yönelik Analiz

Öz

Gayri Safi Yurt İçi Hasıla’nın (GSYİH) önemli bir kısmını oluşturan tüketim, refahın önemli bir göstergesidir. GSYİH’deki artış tüketim harcamalarında da artışa neden olur. Bu çalışmanın amacı tüketim ve gelir ilişkisini önce teorik daha sonra ampirik olarak açıklamaktır. Çalışmada, gelir, enflasyon ve faiz oranı gibi temel makroekonomik değişkenlerin tüketimi nasıl etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmada yöntem olarak birim kök testi uygulanmış ardından, vektör otoregressif model kullanılmış ve ölçülen katsayıların istatistiksel anlamlılığına bakılmıştır. Akabinde eşbütünleşme analizi uygulanmıştır. Ayrıca, Granger nedensellik testi yaklaşımı ile değişkenler arasındaki nedenselliğin yönü tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma, Türkiye özelinde 1987-2019 yıllarını kapsayan yıllık veriler kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Dünya Bankası’ndan elde edilen verilere dayanarak tüketim ve gelir arasındaki ilişki enflasyon ve faiz değişkeni kontrol edilerek analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre, Türkiye’de tüketim ile gelir arasında pozitif yönlü, tüketim ile tüketimin ve faizin geçmiş dönemleri arasında ise negatif yönlü ilişki bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• tüketim
• Türkiye
• Keynesyen teori
• var analizi

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma, İstanbul Yeni Yüzyıl Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ekonomi ve Finans Tezli Yüksek Lisans Programında, Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Suna Şahin danışmanlığında yürütülen ve 30.10.2020 tarihinde savunulan “Gelir Değişimine Tüketimin Tepkisi: 1987-2019 Türkiye Örneği” başlıklı tez çalışmasından üretilmiştir.

Kaynakça

1. Agarwal, S. Liu, C. ve Souleles, N. S. (2007). The reaction of consumer spending and debt to tax rebates evidence from consumer credit data. Journal of Political Economy, 115(6), 986-1019.
2. Aguiar, M. ve Hurst, E. (2005). Consumption versus expenditure. Journal of Political Economy, 113(5), 919-948.
3. Aguiar, M. ve Hurst, E. (2007). Life-Cycle prices and production. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1533-1559.
4. Altonji, J. G. ve Siow, A. (1987). Testing the response of consumption to income changes with (noisy) panel data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(2), 293-328.
5. Ando, A. ve Modigliani, F. (1963). The life cycle hypothesis of saving: aggregate implications and tests. The American Economic Review, 53(1), 55-84.
6. Assael, H. (1995). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Boston Masachusetts: PWS-Kelling.
7. Attanasio, O. P. ve Weber, G. (1993). Consumption growth, the interest rate and aggregation. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 631-649.
8. Banks, J., Blundell, R. ve Tanner, S. (1998). Is there a retirement-savings puzzle. American Economic Review, 769-788.

9. Belch, G. ve Belch, M. C. (1990). Introduction to advertising and promotion management. IRWIN.
10. Bernheim, B. D., Skinner, J. ve Weinberg, S. (2001). What accounts for the variation in retirement wealth among us households?. American Economic Review, 91(4), 832-857.
11. Browning, M. ve Collado, M. D. (2001). The response of expenditures to anticipated income changes: panel data estimates. American Economic Review, 91(3), 681-692.
12. Buğday, E. B., Şener, A., Güzel, Y. (2020). Tüketicilerin bireysel kredi kullanımı davranışlarının analizi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12 (2), 1130-1148.
13. Bunting, D. (2001). keynes’ law and its critics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 24(1), 149-163.
14. Burney, N. A. ve Khan, A. H. (1991). household consumption patterns in pakistan: an urban-rural comparison using micro data. The Pakistan Development Review, 145-171.
15. Deaton, A. (1992). Understanding consumption. England: Oxford University Press.
16. Duesenberry, J. S. (1967). Income, saving, and the theory of consumer behavior. England: Oxford University Press.
17. Duesenberry, J.S. (1949). Income, saving and the theory of consumer behavior. Harvard University Press.
18. Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., ve Miniard, P. W. (1990).Consumer behavior. Hinsdale.
19. Flavin, M. A. (1981). The adjustment of consumption to changing expectations about future income. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 974-1009.
20. Friedman, M. (1957). The permanent income hypothesis in a theory of the consumption function. Princeton University Press.
21. Garcia, R., Lusardi, A. ve Ng, S. (1997). Excess sensitivity and asymmetries in consumption: an empirical investigation. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 154-176.
22. Gupta, D. B. (1973). Consumption patterns in India: a study of inter-regional variations. Tata: McGraw-Hill Pub. Co.
23. Güneş, Ç. (2019). Tüketim ve Kimlik İnşası Üzerine. Iğdır İİBF Dergisi. Sayı 4, ss. 37-42.
24. Hall, R. E. (1978). Stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis: theory and evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 86(6), 971-987.
25. Jappelli, T. ve Pistaferri, L. (2000). Using subjective income expectations to test for excess sensitivity of consumption to predicted income growth. European Economic Review, 44(2), 337-358.
26. Johnson, D. S., Parker, J. A. ve Souleles, N. S. (2006). Household expenditure and the income tax rebates of 2001. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1589-1610.
27. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillan.
28. Khan, M. A. A. ve Khan, M. A. A. (1989). Food consumption as measure of poverty in India. Rawat Publications.
29. Kılıç, N., & Karaoğlu, N. (2014). Tüketim toplumu ve bireysel krediler; Türkiye üzerine bir değerlendirme. International Conference in Economics, Econworld, Prague, Czech Republic.
30. Klein, L. R. ve Goldberger, A. S. (1955). Econometric model of the united states, 1929-1952. North-Holland Publishing.
31. Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443-478.
32. Mmakola, D. J., Kirsten, J. F. ve Groenewald, J. A. (1997). Food consumption patterns in two communities/samevatting: voedsel verbruikspatrone in twee gemeenskappe. Agrekon, 36(2), 206-215.
33. Modigliani, F. ve Brumberg, R. (1954). Utility analysis and the consumption function: an interpretation of cross-section data. The Collected Papers of Franco Modigliani, 1(1), 388-436.
34. Muellbauer, J. N. ve Lattimore, R. (1994). The consumption function: a theoretical and empirical overview. In M.H. Pesaran ve M. R. Wickens, (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Econometrics (pp.221-311). Oxford: Blackwell.
35. Parker, J. A. (1999). Spendthrift in america? on two decades of decline in the us saving rate. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 14, 317-370.
36. Salama, O. M. (1995). Consumption functions and expenditure pattern of food in Egypt. Moshtohor Annuals of Agricultural Science, 33(2), 429-440.
37. Schiffman, L. G. ve Kanuk, L. L. (1997). Consumer behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
38. Shapiro, M. D. ve Slemrod, J. (2003). Consumer response to tax rebates. American Economic Review, 93(1), 381-396.
39. Shapiro, M. D., ve Slemrod, J. (2009). Did The 2008 tax rebates stimulate spending?. American Economic Review, 99(2), 374-379.
40. Shea, M. (1995). Dynamics of economic well-being: poverty, 1990 to 1992 US department of commerce, economics and statistics administration. USA: Bureau of the Census.
41. Souleles, N. S. (1999). The response of household consumption to income tax refunds. American Economic Review, 89(4), 947-958.
42. Souleles, N. S. (2002). Consumer Response to the reagan tax cuts. Journal of Public Economics, 85(1), 99-120.
43. Tozanli, S. (1995). Social transformation and factors hampering evolution of food consumption models in Turkey. Medit, 6(1), 4-11.
44. Walters, C. G. (1974). Consumer behavior: theory and practice. McGraw-Hill: Irwin.
45. Wilcox, DW. (1989). Social security benefits, consumption expenditure, and the life cycle hypothesis, J. Polit. Econ, 288-304.
46. Zeldes, S. P. (1989). Consumption and liquidity constraints: an empirical investigation. Journal of Political Economy, 97(2), 305-346.