Borç, Servet, Gelir Dağılımı ve Talep: Türkiye Üzerine Post-Keynesyen Ampirik Bir Çalışma

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı Türkiye’de servet, kişisel gelir dağılımı ve hanehalkı ve şirket borç stoklarının bütünleşik talep ve bileşenlerinin üzerindeki etkisini incelemek ve ülkenin talep rejimini tespit etmektir. Bu amaçla Türkiye ekonomisinin 1988-2019 dönemini post-Keynesgil bir çerçeve içerisinde inceledik. Bulgularımız, servet için kullanılan vekil değişkenin tüketim üzerinde küçük ama pozitif bir etkisi olduğunu, lakin yatırım üzerinde bir etkisi olmadığını ortaya koydu. Ekonometrik analizde kullanılan dört kişisel gelir dağılımı göstergesinden yalnızca birinin tüketim üzerinde çok küçük bir etkisi olduğunu ve hiçbirinin yatırım üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisi olmadığını gözlemledik. Hanehalkı borçlarının muhtemelen ipotekler nedeniyle yeni yapılan gayrimenkulleri de içeren yatırım harcamaları üzerinde pozitif bir etkisi olduğu, fakat tüketim harcamaları üzerinde hiçbir etkisi olmadığı ortaya çıktı. Ekonometrik tahminlerimiz aynı zamanda işletme borçlarının yatırımlar üzerinde negatif bir etkisi olduğuna işaret etti. Bulgularımızın bireşimi Türkiye’de talep rejiminin kâr-çekişli olduğunu gösterdi. Ancak değişkenlerin büyümeye katkılarının hesabı, bütünleşik talebin belirlenmesinde fonksiyonel gelir dağılımının ikincil, servet ve borç değişkenlerinin ise birincil bir rolü olduğuna işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• post-Keynesian economics
• income distribution
• debts
• aggregate demand

Debt, Wealth, Income Distribution and Demand: A post-Keynesian Empirical Study on Turkiye

Öz

The aim of this article is to examine effects of wealth, personal income distribution, and households’ and firms’ debt stock on aggregate demand and its components in Türkiye and characterize its demand regime. For this purpose, we examined the Turkish economy over the 1988-2019 period within a post-Keynesian framework. Our findings suggested that the proxy variable for wealth has a small but positive effect on consumption, but no effect on investment. We observed that of four personal income distribution indicators employed in econometric investigations, only one of them had some minor effect on consumption but none of them had any significant effect on investment. Household debt, probably due to mortgages, turned out to have a positive effect on total investment expenditures, which also consists of newly constructed residences, but no effect on consumption expenditures. Our econometric estimations also pointed out that business debt has a negative effect on investment. The synthesis of findings suggested that the demand regime is profit-led in Türkiye. However, calculation of growth contributions of variables indicate that functional income distribution has a minor role, but wealth and debt variables have a major role in determination of aggregate demand.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• post-Keynesian economics
• income distribution
• debts
• aggregate demand

Teşekkür

I would like to thank A. A. Elbakyan for her invaluable contributions.

Kaynakça

1. Akyüz, Y., & Boratav, K. (2003). The making of the Turkish financial crisis. World Development, 31(9), 1549-1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00108-6 google scholar
2. Arslan, H. (2006). State, labor and crisis: the 1989-1995 period in Turkey (Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University). Retrieved from http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607284/index.pdf google scholar
3. Barbosa-Filho, N. H., & Taylor, L. (2006). Distributive and demand cycles in the US economy—a structuralist Goodwin model. Metroeconomica, 57(3), 389-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-999X.2006.00250.x google scholar
4. Bhaduri, A., & Marglin, S. (1990). Unemployment and the real wage: the economic basis for contesting political ideologies. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14(4), 375-393. https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035141 google scholar
5. Blecker, R. A., Cauvel, M., & Kim, Y. K. (2022). Systems estimation of a structural model of distribution and demand in the US economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 46(2), 391-420. https://doi. org/10.1093/cje/beab052 google scholar
6. Bowles, S., & Boyer, R. (1995). Wages, aggregate demand, and employment in an open economy: an empirical investigation. In G.A. Epstein & H.M. Gintis (Eds.), Macroeconomic policy after the conservative era (pp. 143-71). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
7. Boratav, K. (2016). The Turkish bourgeoisie under neoliberalism. Research and Policy on Turkey, 1(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/23760818.2015.1099778 google scholar
8. Boratav, K. (2018). Türkiye İktisat Tarihi 1908-2015 [An economic history of Türkiye 1908-2015]. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi. google scholar

9. Boratav, K. (2022). Prof. Dr. Korkut Boratav ile Söyleşi: AKP, Türkiye ve Ekonomik Liberalizm [Interview with Professor Korkut Boratav: AKP, Türkiye and Economic Liberalism, conducted by Oğuz Oyan]. Dayanışma Forumu, 6 (September 2021), 3-8. Retrieved from https:// dayanismameclisi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/DF-sayi-6.pdf google scholar
10. Boratav, K., Bulutay, T., Yavuz, E. G. E., Türel, O., Türeli, R. A., & Uygur, E. (2018). Yeni Ulusal Gelir Serileri Üzerine Gözlem ve Değerlendirmeler [Observations and Evaluations on the New National Income Series]. Ekonomi-tek, 7(2), 61-70. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/ pub/ekonomitek/issue/52659/694070 google scholar
11. Boratav, K., Yeldan, E., & Köse, A. H. (2000). Globalization, distribution and social policy: Turkey, 1980-1998. CEPA and The New School for Social Research, Working Paper Series, 20(2000), 1131 14. Retrieved from http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/scepa/publications/ workingpapers/2000/cepa0120.pdf google scholar
12. Bölükoğlu, A. (2019). Türkiye’nin talep rejimi: Post-keynesyen ekonometrik bir analiz [Demand Regime of Turkey: A Post-Keynesian Econometric Analysis]. Sosyoekonomi, 27(42), 163-180. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2019.04.09 google scholar
13. BRSA (Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency of Turkey) (2017-2022). Turkish Banking Sector Main Indicators Reports, all issues from September 2017 to March 2022. Retrieved from https:// www.bddk.org.tr/Veri/Detay/171 in September 2022 google scholar
14. BSB (Independent Social Scientists) (2015). AKP’li Yıllarda Emeğin Durumu [The conditions of labor during the years of AKP]. İstanbul, Türkiye: Yordam. google scholar
15. Carvalho, L., & Rezai, A. (2016). Personal income inequality and aggregate demand. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40(2), 491-505. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu085 google scholar
16. Cömert, H., Çelik, D., & Şengül, Z. O. (2022). AKP dönemi Türkiye ekonomisinin performansı: Karşılaştırmalı bir analiz [Performance of the Turkish economy during the AKP period: A comparative analysis]. Metu Studies in Development, 49(June), 1-59. Retrieved from https:// open.metu.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11511/98575/1253-7510-2-PB.pdf google scholar
17. Duesenberry, J.S. (1949). Income, saving and the theory of consumer behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. google scholar
18. Duman, A. (2015). Türkiye’de gelir eşitsizliği: gerçeği aramak [Income inequality in Türkiye: Quest for the truth], Unpublished Article. google scholar
19. Dymski, G. (2010). Why the subprime crisis is different: a Minskyian approach. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(2), 239-255. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep054 google scholar
20. Ekzen, N. (2016). Türkiye Kısa İktisat Tarihi 1946’dan 2008’e. [A Short Economic History of Türkiye from 1946 to 2008], Ankara: ODTÜ Yayıncılık. google scholar
21. Erol, I. (2019). Financial transformation and housing finance in Turkey. In G.L. Yalman, T. Marois & A.R. Güngen (Eds.), The political economy of financial transformation in Turkey (pp. 243-268). New York, NY: Routledge. google scholar
22. Fazzari, S., Ferri, P. and Greenberg, E. (2008). Cash flow, investment, and Keynes- Minsky cycles. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65(3), 555-572. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj. jebo.2005.11.007 google scholar
23. Frank, R. H. (1985). The demand for unobservable and other nonpositional goods. The American Economic Review, 75(1), 101-116. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1812706 google scholar
24. Frank, R., Levine, A., & Dijk, O. (2014). Expenditure cascades. Review of Behavioral Economics, 1(1-2), 55-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/105.00000003 google scholar
25. Hartwig, J. (2014). Testing the Bhaduri-Marglin model with OECD panel data. International Review of Applied Economics, 28(4), 419-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2014.896881 google scholar Hein, E. (2014). Distribution and growth after Keynes: A Post-Keynesian guide. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. google scholar
26. Hein, E. (2017). Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 14(2), 131-172. https://doi.org/10.4337/ ejeep.2017.02.01 google scholar
27. Hein, E., & Tarassow, A. (2010). Distribution, aggregate demand and productivity growth: theory and empirical results for six OECD countries based on a post-Kaleckian model. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(4), 727-754. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep066 google scholar
28. Hein, E., & Vogel, L. (2008). Distribution and growth reconsidered: empirical results for six OECD countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32(3), 479-511. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bem047 google scholar
29. Jetin, B., & Kurt, O. E. (2016). Functional income distribution and growth in Thailand: A post Keynesian econometric analysis. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 39(3), 334-360. https://doi. org/10.1080/01603477.2016.1202774 google scholar
30. Jetin, B., & Ortiz, L.R. (2020). Wage-led demand as a rebalancing strategy for economic growth in China. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 43(3), 341-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2 020.1774392 google scholar
31. Kara^imen, E. (2014). Financialization in Turkey: The case of consumer debt. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 16(2), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2014.910393 google scholar Kepenek, Y. (2011). Development & Structure of the Turkish economy. Ankara: METU Press. google scholar
32. Kiefer, D., & Rada, C. (2015). Profit maximising goes global: the race to the bottom. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(5), 1333-1350. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu040 google scholar
33. Kim, Y. K., Setterfield, M., & Mei, Y. (2015). Aggregate consumption and debt accumulation: an empirical examination of US household behaviour. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(1), 93112. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu029 google scholar
34. Kohli, V. (2018). Functional income distribution and effective demand in India: An applied post Keynesian model. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 41(3), 399-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 1603477.2018.1431795 google scholar
35. Kurt, O.E. (2020). Functional income distribution, capacity utilization, capital accumulation and productivity growth in Turkey: A post-Kaleckian analysis. Metroeconomica, 71(4), 734-766. https://doi.org/10.1111/meca.12300 google scholar
36. Kurt, O.E. (2021). Instability of the US economy: A post- Kaleckian econometric analysis of functional income distribution, capacity utilization, capital accumulation and productivity growth. Metu Studies in Development, 48(December), 251-288. Retrieved from http://www2.feas.metu.edu.tr/ metusd/ojs/index.php/metusd/article/view/1163 google scholar
37. Minsky, H. (2016) [1978]. The financial instability hypothesis: a restatement. In Can “It” Happen Again? (pp. 124-151). New York, NY: Routledge. google scholar
38. Molero-Simarro, R. (2015). Functional distribution of income, aggregate demand, and economic growth in the Chinese economy, 1978-2007. International Review of Applied Economics, 29(4), 435-454. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2015.1016404 google scholar
39. Narayan, P.K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979-1990. https://doi:10.1080/00036840500278103 google scholar
40. Nishi, H. (2012). Structural VAR analysis of debt, capital accumulation, and income distribution in the Japanese economy: a Post Keynesian perspective. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 34(4), 685-712. https://doi.org/10.2753/PKE0160-3477340405 google scholar
41. Onaran, O. (2009). Crises and post-crisis adjustment in Turkey: implications for labor. In Z. Oni§ & F. Jenses (Eds.), Turkey and the Global Economy (pp. 243-261). New York, NY: Routledge. google scholar
42. Onaran, O., & Galanis, G. (2014). Income distribution and growth: a global model. Environment and Planning A, 46(10), 2489-2513. https://doi.org/10.1068/a46265 google scholar
43. Onaran, O., & Oyvat, C. (2016). The political economy of inequality and boom-bust cycles in Turkey: before and after the great recession. In P. Arestis & M. Sawyer (Eds.), Emerging economies during and after the great recession (pp. 270-309). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137485557_8 google scholar
44. Onaran, Ö., & Stockhammer, E. (2005). Two different export-oriented growth strategies: accumulation and distribution in Turkey and South Korea. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 41(1), 65-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2005.11052596 google scholar
45. Onaran, Ö., Stockhammer, E., & Grafl, L. (2011). Financialisation, income distribution and aggregate demand in the USA. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(4), 637-661. https://doi.org/10.1093/ cje/beq045 google scholar
46. Orhangazi, Ö., & Yeldan, A. E. (2021). The re-making of the Turkish crisis. Development and Change, 52(3), 460-503. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12644 google scholar
47. Oyvat, C. (2011). Globalization, wage shares and income distribution in Turkey. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 4(1), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsq032 google scholar
48. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. https://doi:10.1002/jae.616 google scholar
49. Quataert, D. (2005). The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
50. Ryoo, S., 2013. Minsky cycles in Keynesian models of growth and distribution. Review of Keynesian Economics, 1(1), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.4337/roke.2013.01.03 google scholar
51. Stockhammer, E. (2017). Wage-led versus profit-led demand: What have we learned? A Kaleckian-Minskyan view. Review of Keynesian Economics, 5(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.4337/ roke.2017.01.03 google scholar
52. Stockhammer, E., & Ederer, S. (2008). Demand effects of the falling wage share in Austria. Empirica, 35(5), 481-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-008-9069-0 google scholar
53. Stockhammer, E., & Onaran, Ö. (2004). Accumulation, distribution and employment: a structural VAR approach to a Kaleckian macro model. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 15(4), 421-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2003.07.002 google scholar
54. Stockhammer, E., Onaran, Ö., & Ederer, S. (2009). Functional income distribution and aggregate demand in the Euro area. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(1), 139-159. https://doi. org/10.1093/cje/ben026 google scholar
55. Stockhammer, E. & Wildauer, R. (2016). Debt-driven growth? Wealth, distribution and demand in OECD countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40(6), 1609-1634. https://doi.org/10.1093/ cje/bev070 google scholar
56. TURKSTAT (Turkish Statistical Institute) (2022). Gross fixed capital formation at current prices, 20092021. Retrieved from https://data.tuik.gov.tr in September 2022. google scholar
57. Vermeulen, P. (2018). How fat is the top tail of the wealth distribution?. Review of Income and Wealth, 64(2), 357-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12279 google scholar
58. Yılmaz, E. (2015). Wage or profit-led growth? The case of Turkey. Journal of Economic Issues, 49(3), 814-834. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2015.1072429 google scholar