Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım Çıkışları ile Ekonomik Kırılganlık Arasında Nedensellik: Sekiz Kırılgan Ekonomi Üzerine İnceleme

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kırılgan sekiz ekonominin (Arjantin, Brezilya, Çin, Kolombiya, Hindistan, Güney Afrika, Tayland, Türkiye) doğrudan yabancı yatırım çıkışları ile ekonomik kırılganlık göstergeleri arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisini araştırmaktır. 1995-2021 dönemini kapsayan çalışmanın veri seti, doğrudan yabancı yatırım çıkışları ile ekonomik kırılganlık göstergesi olarak belirlenen; tüketici fiyat endeksi, merkezi hükümet borçları/gayrisafi yurt içi hâsıla, toplam rezerv/dış borç, M2/gayrisafi yurt içi hâsıla, cari işlemler dengesi/ gayrisafi yurt içi hâsıla, bankalar tarafından sağlanan yurtiçi özel sektör kredileri/ gayrisafi yurt içi hâsıla ve toplam borç/ihracat değişkenlerinden oluşmaktadır. Kónya (2006) tarafından geliştirilen bootstrap panel nedensellik analizi sonuçlarına göre; ekonomik kırılganlığı temsil eden değişkenler ile doğrudan yabancı yatırım çıkışları arasında nedensellik ilişkisi en çok Tayland’da, en az Çin’de görülmektedir. Araştırma sonuçları, ekonomik kırılganlık göstergeleri ile doğrudan yabancı yatırım çıkışları arasındaki nedensel ilişkinin yönü konusunda güçlü bir fikir birliği olmadığını göstermektedir. Çalışmanın bulgularına dayanarak her ülkenin kendi iç dinamiklerine uygun politika geliştirmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar
• ekonomik kırılganlık
• Kónya nedensellik testi.

Causality between Foreign Direct Investment Outflows and Economic Fragility: A Study on Eight Fragile Economies

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the causality relationship between FDI outflows and economic fragility indicators in eight fragile economies (Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, India, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey). The data set of the study, which covers the period 1995-2021, consists of FDI outflows and economic fragility indicators; consumer price index, central government debt/GDP, total reserves/foreign debt, M2/GDP, current account balance/GDP, domestic private sector loans provided by banks/GDP and total debt/exports. According to the results of the bootstrap panel causality analysis developed by Kónya (2006), the causality relationship between the variables representing economic fragility and FDI outflows is highest in Thailand and lowest in China. The results show that there is no strong consensus on the direction of the causal relationship between economic fragility indicators and FDI outflows. Based on the findings of the study, it is recommended that each country should develop policies in line with its own internal dynamics.

Keywords

• Foreign direct investments
• economic fragility
• Kónya causality test

Kaynakça

1. Afonso, A. ve Rault, C. (2009). Bootstrap panel granger causality between government budget and external deficits for the EU. CESIFO Working Paper No. 2581. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/25655
2. Al-Sadig, A. (2013). The effects of foreign direct investment on private domestic investment: evidence from developing countries. Empirical Economics, 44(3), 1267-1275. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-012-0569-1
3. Amal, M., Raboch, H. ve Tomio, B. T. (2009). Strategies and determinants of foreign direct investment (FDI) from developing countries: Case study of Latin America. Latin American Business Review, 10(2-3), 73-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10978520903212532
4. Baltagi, B. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data. (Third Edition). John Wiley ve Sons.
5. Bennett, P. D. ve Green, R. T. (1972). Political instability as a determinant of direct foreign investment in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(2), 182-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377200900210
6. Breusch, T. ve Pagan, A. (1980). The LM test and its application to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies 47, 239–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
7. Buckley, P.J., Clegg, L.J., Cross, A.R., Liu, X., Voss, H. ve Zheng, P. (2007). The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 499-518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400277
8. Calvo, G. A., Leiderman, L. ve Reinhart, C. M. (1996). Inflows of capital to developing countries in the 1990s. Journal of economic perspectives, 10(2), 123-139. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.10.2.123

9. Chen, J. E. ve Zulkifli, S. A. M. (2012). Malaysian outward FDI and economic growth. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 717-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.189
10. Chen, J. E., Chin, L., Law, S. H. ve Azman-Saini, W. N. W. (2016). Outward FDI and institutional factors: Malaysian experience. Journal of Emerging Economies and Islamic Research, 4(3), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.24191/jeeir.v4i3.9095
11. Chudik A. ve Pesaran M. H. (2015). Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics 188(2), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
12. De Mello, L. (1997). FDI in developing countries and growth: A selective survey. Journal of Development Studies, 34(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389708422501
13. De Paula, L. F. R. ve Alves Jr, A. J. (2000). External financial fragility and the 1998-1999 Brazilian currency crisis. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 22(4), 589-617. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2000.11490261
14. Dolzer, R. (2004). The impact of international investment treaties on domestic administrative law. NYUJ Int'l. L. ve Pol., 37, 953. https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Dolzer-The-Impact-of-International-Investment-Treaties-on-Domestic-Administrative-Law-2005.pdf
15. Elbadawi, I., Soto, R. ve Martinez, I. (2019). Exports, exchange regimes, and fragility. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. https://www.economia.uc.cl/docs/doctra/dt-526.pdf
16. FED (2014). Monetary Policy Report: February 2014 http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20140211_mprfullreport.pdf
17. Gondim, I. J. C., Morandier, N., Dias, I. R. R., Couto, C. A. P. ve Charotta, T. C. A. (2017). Analysis of domestic factors affecting outward foreign direct investment in Brazil. Latin American Business Review, 18(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10978526.2016.1251821
18. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37, 424-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
19. Hellenier, E. (2009). Contemporary reform of global financial governance: Implications of and lessons from the past. CIGI Chair in International Governance, Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo, Canada, G-24 Discussion Paper, No.55. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/gdsmdpg2420092_en.pdf
20. Heriqbaldi, U. ve Mufiidah, N. D. (2023). The determinants of China’s outward foreign direct investment in ASEAN: A panel ARDL approach. Journal of Accounting and Investment, 24(3), 697-714. https://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/ai/article/view/18256
21. Humanicki, M., Kelm, R. ve Olszewski, K. (2013). Foreign direct investment and foreign portfolio investment in the contemporary globalized world: should they be still treated separately?. National Bank of Poland Working Paper, 167. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2369231
22. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. ve Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
23. Intriligator, M. D. (2004). Globalization of the world economy: Potential benefits and costs and a net assessment. J Policy Model, 26, 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2004.04.004
24. İnal, V., Addi, H. M., Çakmak, E. E., Torusdağ, M. ve Çalışkan, M. (2022). The nexus between renewable energy, CO2 emissions, and economic growth: Empirical evidence from African oil-producing countries. Energy Reports, 8, 1634-1643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.051
25. Kai, Y. J., Kueh, J., Wei, Y. S., Yau, J. ve Liwan, A. (2019). Determinants of foreign direct ınvestment outflow of Malaysia: Vector error correction model. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(11), 144-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i11/6538
26. Kaplan, F. ve Aktas, A. R. (2015). A causality analysis of tourism revenues and economic growth on selected Mediterranean countries, Actual Problems of Economics, 3(165), 33-42. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2586834
27. Kar, M., Nazlıoğlu, Ş. ve Ağır, H. (2011). Financial development and economic growth nexus in the MENA countries: Bootstrap panel granger causality analysis. Economic modelling, 28(1-2), 685-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.05.015
28. Kardaşlar, A. (2022). Gelişmekte olan ülkeler için doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının belirleyicileri. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(4), 1023-1040. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1152283
29. Kónya, L. (2006). Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 23, 978–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2006.04.008
30. Kutbay, H. (2020). Vergi teşviki uygulamasının yatırım çıkışları üzerindeki etkisi: Gelişmekte olan ülkeler için panel veri analiz. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(2), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.29106/fesa.715177
31. Lee, C., Lee, C. G. ve Yeo, M. (2016). Determinants of Singapore's outward FDI. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, ISEAS Economics Working, Paper No. 2016-2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44132426
32. Liu, H. H. ve Dejphanomporn, P. (2022). Main determinants influencing inward and outward foreign direct investments in Thailand: comparisons and vital implications. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 12(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.47260/amae/1211
33. Masron, T. A. (2017). Relative institutional quality and FDI inflows in ASEAN countries. Journal of Economic Studies, 44(1), 115-137. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-04-2015-0067
34. Nayyar, R. ve Mukherjee, J. (2020). Home country impact on outward FDI from India. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(2), 385-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.06.006
35. Ocampo, J. A. (2008). A broad view of macroeconomic stability. The Washington consensus reconsidered, 63-94. http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2005/wp1_2005.pdf
36. OECD (2016). States of Fragility 2016: Understanding violence, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267213-en
37. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. IZA Discussion Paper 1240, Institute for the Study of Labor. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
38. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of applied econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
39. Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
40. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The econometrics journal, 11(1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
41. Seth, A. ve Ragab, A. (2012). Macroeconomic vulnerability in developing countries: Approachs and issues. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth Working Paper, 94: 1-20. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71809/1/72073648X.pdf
42. Seyidoğlu, H. (2015). Uluslararası iktisat: Teori, politika ve uygulama, Geliştirilmiş 20. Baskı, Güzem Can Yayınları. Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38, 311–323. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1913012
43. Zhang, X. ve Daly, K. (2011). The determinants of China's outward foreign direct investment. Emerging markets review, 12(4), 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2011.06.001