-

Abstract

In this paper validity of the Fiscal Theory of Price Level in Turkey is investigated by using quarterly data and by applying Johansen cointegration test, vektor error correction model and impulse-response functions. The empirical analysis is applied over the period of 1988.4-2013.1 and the subperiods of 1988.4-2001.1 and 2001.2-2013.1. Empirical evidence related to the period of 1988.4-2001.1 indicates a non-Ricardian regime in Turkey, whereas it shows the validity of a Ricardian regime for the period 2001.22013.1. The findings related to the whole period, 1988.4-2013.1, imply that the effects of the economic policy implementation related to 1988.4-2001.1 period outweigh the effects of 2001.2-2013.1 period, meaning the validity of a non-Ricardian regime for the whole period as well.

Keywords

• Fiscal Theory of Price Level, Fiscal Policy, Monetary Policy.

FİYAT DÜZEYİ MALİ TEORİSİNİN TÜRKİYE AÇISINDAN GEÇERLİLİĞİ: AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ

Abstract

ÖZET
Bu çalışmada Türkiye'de Fiyat Düzeyi Mali Teorisinin geçerliliği, üçer aylık verilerek kullanılarak ve eşbütünleşme ve vektör hata düzeltme yöntemleri ile test edilmektedir. Ampirik sınama 1988.4-2013.1 döneminin tamamına, bunun yanısıra 1988.4-2001.1 ve 2001.2-2013.1 alt dönemlerine ilişkin olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. 1988.4-2001.1 dönemine yönelik yapılan ampirik testler, bu dönemde Türkiye'de geçerli olan rejimin Ricardocu olmadığını gösterirken, 2001.2-2013.1 döneminde Ricardocu rejimin geçerli olduğuna dair bulgular elde edilmiştir. Dönemin tamamına yönelik olarak gerçekleştirilen ampirik sınamalarda ise ilk dönemde elde edilen Ricardocu olmayan politika uygulamalarının ağır bastığı, bir diğer ifadeyle 1988.4- 2013.1 döneminde ekonomi politikasının maliye politikası baskın olduğu sonucu elde edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Fiyat Düzeyi Mali Teorisi, Maliye Politikası, Para Politikası.
Jel Sınıflandırması: E52, E62, E63, C01

ABSTRACT
In this paper validity of the Fiscal Theory of Price Level in Turkey is investigated by using quarterly data and by applying Johansen cointegration test, vektor error correction model and impulse-response functions. The empirical analysis is applied over the period of 1988.4-2013.1 and the subperiods of 1988.4-2001.1 and 2001.2-2013.1. Empirical evidence related to the period of 1988.4-2001.1 indicates a non- Ricardian regime in Turkey, whereas it shows the validity of a Ricardian regime for the period 2001.2- 2013.1. The findings related to the whole period, 1988.4-2013.1, imply that the effects of the economic policy implementation related to 1988.4-2001.1 period outweigh the effects of 2001.2-2013.1 period, meaning the validity of a non-Ricardian regime for the whole period as well. 

Keywords: Fiscal Theory of Price Level, Fiscal Policy, Monetary Policy.
Jel Classification: E52, E62, E63, C01

Keywords

• Fiyat Düzeyi Mali Teorisi, Maliye Politikası, Para Politikası.

References

1. AFONSO, António (2005). “Ricardian Fiscal Regimes in the European Union”, European Central Bank Working Paper Series, No. 558.
2. BALLABRIGA, Fernando ve Carlos MARTÍNEZMONGAY (2002). “Has EMU Shifted Policy?”, European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Economics Papers, No.166.
3. BALDINI, Alferdo ve Marcos Poplawski RIBEIRO (2008). “Fiscal and Monetary Anchors for Price Stability: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa”, IMF Working Paper WP/08/121.
4. BOHN, Henning (1998). “The Behaviour of U.S. Public Debt and Deficits”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, pp. 949-64.
5. BUITER, Willem (1997). “Neutrality, Price Level Indeterminacy, Interest Rate Pegs and Fiscal Theories of the Price Level”, Mimeo.
6. CANZONERI, Matthew B., Robert E. CUMBY ve Behzad T. DIBA (2001). “Is The Price Level Determined By The Needs Of Fiscal Solvency?”, American Economic Review, 91(5), pp. 1221–1238.
7. COCHRANE, John H. (1998). “A Frictionless View Of US Inflation”, in B. Bernake and J. Rotemberg (eds), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, pp 323–84.
8. COCHRANE, John H. (2001). “Long Term Debt And Optimal Policy In The Fiscal Theory Of The Price Level”, Econometrica, 69(1), pp. 69-116.

9. COCHRANE, John H. (2005). “Money As Stock”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(3), pp. 501–528.
10. CREEL, Jérôme ve Henri STERDYNIAK (2001). “La Théorie Budgetaire Du Niveau Des Prix: Un Bilan Critique”, Revue d’Economie Politique, 6, pp. 909-940.
11. CREEL, Jérôme ve Hervé Le Bihan (2006). “Using Structural Balance Data to Test the Fiscal Theory of the Price Level: Some International Evidence”, Journal of Macroeconomics, 28, pp. 338-360.
12. CREEL, Jérôme ve Güneş KAMBER (2004). “Debt, Deficit and Inflation on the Road to the EU: The Case of Turkey”, (OFCE) Observatoire Français des Conjonctures Economiques, Special Issue, April.
13. CUSHING, Matthew J. (1999). “The Indeterminacy of Prices Under Interest Rate Pegging: The Non-Ricardian Case”, Journal of Monetay Economics, 44, pp. 131-148.
14. DEBRUN, Xavier ve Charles WYPLOSZ (1999). “Onze Gouvernments Et Une Banque Centrale”, Revue d’ Economie Politique, 3, pp. 387-420. DICKEY, David A. ve Wayne A. FULLER (1979). “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), pp. 427-431.
15. ENDERS, Walter (2004). Applied Econometric Time Series, Canada: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
16. ENGLE, Robert E. ve Clive W.J. GRANGER (1987). “Cointegration and Error-Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing”, Econometrica, 55, pp. 251-76.
17. GUJARATI, Damodar, N. (1999). Temel Ekonometri. çev. Ümit Şenesen, Gülay G. Şenesen. 3. bs. İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık.
18. JOHANSEN, Sİren (1991). “Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models”, Econometrica, 59, pp. 1551-1580.
19. JOHANSEN, Sİren ve Katarina JUSELIUS (1990). “Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration-With Applications to the Demand for Money”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, pp. 169-210.
20. MÉLITZ, Jacques (2000). “Some Cross-Country Evidence about Fiscal Policy Behaviour and Consequences for EMU”, European Economy, Reports and Studies 2, 3-21.
21. McCALLUM, Bennett T. (1997). “Issues in the Design of Monetary Policy Rules”, National Bureau of Economic Research, (Cambridge MA) Working Paper, No. 6016, April.
22. ROCHA, Fabiana ve Elisa SILVA (2004). “Teoria Fiscal Do Nível De Preços: Um Teste Para A Economia Brasileira No Período 1966/2000”, Pesquisa e Planejamento Economico, 34 (3), pp. 419-435.
23. SAÇKAN, Oğuzhan (2006). “Genel Fiyat Düzeyinin Belirlenmesinde Para ve Maliye Politikası Dominant Rejimler: Türkiye Örneği: 1988-2005”, TCMB Emisyon Genel Müdürlüğü Uzmanlık Tezi, Mayıs, Ankara.
24. TANNER, Evan ve Alberto RAMOS (2002). “Fiscal Sustainability And Monetary And Versus Fiscal Dominance: Evidence From Brazil, 1999 –2000” IMF Working Paper WP/ 02/5.
25. TELATAR, E. (2002). “Para ve Maliye Politikası Dominant Rejimlerde Fiyat Belirlenemezlik Problemi ve Merkez Bankası Bağımsızlığı”, Ekonomik Yaklaşım Dergisi, 10(35), ss. 5–20.
26. WOODFORD, Michael (1994). “Monetary Policy And Price Level Determinacy In A Cash-In-Advance Economy”, Economic Theory, 4(3), 345–380. WOODFORD, Michael (1995). “Price Level Determinacy Without Control Of A Monetary Aggregate”, Carnegie Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 43, December, pp 1–46.
27. WOODFORD, Michael (1998). “Doing Without Money: Controlling Inflation In A Post-Monetary World”, Review of Economic Dynamics, 1, pp 173–219.
28. ZIVOT, Eric ve Donald W. K. ANDREWS (1992), “Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis”, Journal of Business Economic Statistics, 10(3), pp. 251-270.
29. ZOLI, Edda (2005). “How Does Fiscal Policy Affect Monetary Policy in Emerging Market Countries?”, Bank of International Settlements Working Papers, No. 174, April.