-

Öz

One of the most popular topics in the literature of macroeconomics is the Neutrality of Money Hypothesis which is defined as a permanent, unexpected change to the level of money supply has no effect on the level of real GDP in the long run. If this hypothesis holds, policy makers cannot influence real macroeconomic variables by using monetary policies. The aim of this study is to test the Neutrality of Money Hypothesis in Turkey with considering possible structural breaks. In this regard, the considered hypothesis was tested by Hatemi-J (2008) cointegration test and it is concluded that the Neutrality Hypothesis does not hold for Turkey. This result implies that, policy makers can use money supply as an effective monetary policy instrument in order to affect the real macroeconomic variables

Anahtar Kelimeler

• The Neutraliy of Money Hypothesis, The Turkish Economy, Cointegration

PARANIN YANSIZLIĞI HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ: TÜRKİYE EKONOMİSİ İÇİN YAPISAL KIRILMALI EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ

Öz

Makroekonomik literatür içerisindeki en popüler konulardan biri, para arzında meydana gelen beklenmeyen sürekli bir değişikliğin, uzun dönemde reel GSYH üzerinde herhangi bir etki yaratmayacağı şeklinde tanımlanan Paranın Yansızlığı Hipotezi’dir. Eğer bu hipotez geçerli ise politika yapıcıların para politikalarını kullanarak reel makroekonomik değişkenleri etkileme gücü ortadan kalkar. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Paranın Yansızlığı Hipotezi’nin Türkiye’de olası yapısal kırılmaları da göz önünde bulundurarak test edilmesidir. Bu doğrultuda, söz konusu hipotez Hatemi-J (2008) eşbütünleşme testi ile sınanmış ve Yansızlık Hipotezinin Türkiye’de geçerli olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu sonuca göre politika yapıcılar para arzını, reel makroekonomik değişkenleri etkilemek amacıyla, etkin bir para politikası aracı olarak kullanabilirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Paranın Yansızlığı Hipotezi, Türkiye Ekonomisi, Eşbütünleşme, Yapısal Kırılma.

Kaynakça

1. ABAAN, E. D., (1987), “Parasal Şok ve Reel Ekonomik Etkinlik,” ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 14 (3), s. 271-282.
2. ASLAN, Ö. ve KORAP, L., (2007), “Testing Quantity Theory of Money for the Turkish
3. Economy,” BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 1 (2), s. 93-109. BAE, S. K. ve JENSEN, M. J. ve MURDOCK, S. G., (2005), “Long-run Neutrality in a
4. Fractionally Integrated Model,” Journal of Macroeconomics, 27 (2), s. 257-274. BARRO, R. J., (1977), “Unanticipated Money Growth and Unemployment in the United
5. States,” American Economic Review, 67 (2), s. 101-115. BELADİ, H. ve SAMANTA, S. K., (1988), “Unanticipated Monetary Policy and Real
6. Output: Some Evidence from the U.K. Economy,” Applied Economics, 20, s. 721-729. BOHARA, A. K., (1991), “Testing the Rational-Expectations Hypothesis: Further
7. Evidence,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 9 (3), s. 337-340. BULLARD, J. B., (1999), “Testing Long-run Monetary Neutrality Propositions: Lessons from the Recent Research,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 81, s. 57-77.
8. CHEN, S., (2007), “Evidence of the Long-Run Neutrality of Money: The Case of South

9. Korea and Taiwan,” Economics Bulletin, 3 (64), s. 1-18. CUÑADO, J. ve GİL-ALANA, L. A. ve PÉREZ DE GRACıA, F., (2009), “New Evidence on Long-run Monetary Neutrality,” Journal of Applied Economics, 12, s. 229-248.
10. EVANS, P., (1996), “Growth and the Neutrality of Money,” Empirical Economics, 21 (1), s. 187-202.
11. FISHER, M. E. ve SEATER, J. J., (1993) “Long-run Neutrality and Superneutrality in an
12. ARIMA Framework,” American Economic Review, 83, s. 402-415. FUNG, B. S. ve KASUMOVICH, M., (1998) “Monetary Shocks in the G-6 Countries: Is
13. There A Puzzle?,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 42, s. 575-592. GREGORY, A. W. ve HANSEN, B. E., (1996), “Residual-based Tests for Cointegration
14. In Models with Regime Shifts,” Journal of Econometrics, 70, s. 99–126 HATEMİ-J, A., (2008), Tests for Cointegration with Two Unknown Regime Shifts: With
15. An Application to Financial Market Integration,” Empirical Economics, 35, s. 497-505. JHA, R. ve DONDE, K., (2001), “The Real Effects of Anticipated and Unanticipated
16. Money: A Test of the Barro Proposition in the Indian Context,” Indian Economic Journal, 49 (1), s. 21-30. KHATRI-CHETTRI, J. ve AMPON, K. ve MYLES, W., (1990), “Anticipated and Unanticipated Money in Thailand,” The American Economist, 34, s. 83-87.
17. KING, R. G. ve WATSON, M. W., (1992), “Testing Long-Run Neutrality,” NBER Working Paper No. 4165.
18. KING, R. G. ve WATSON, M. W., (1997), “Testing Long-run Neutrality,” Economic
19. Quarterly of Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 83, s. 69-101. LEE, J. ve STRAZICICH, M. C., (2003), “Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85 (2), s. 1082-1089.
20. LEE, Y. G. ve ZILBERFARB, B. Z., (1993), “Unanticipated Money, Output,
21. Employment and Prices in a Developing Economy: The Korean Case,” International Economic Journal, 7 (2), s. 15-26. LUMSDAINE, R. ve PAPELL, D., (1997), “Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit-Root
22. Hypothesis,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 79 (2), s. 212-218. MCGEE, R. ve STASIAK, R., (1985), “Does Anticipated Monetary Policy Matter?
23. Another Look,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 17, s. 16-27. MISHKIN, F. S., (1982), “Does Anticipated Monetary Policy Matter? An Econometric
24. Investigation,” Journal of Political Economy, 90 (1), s. 22-51. MOOSA, I. A., (1997), “Testing the Long-run Neutrality of Money in a Developing
25. Economy: The Case of India,” Journal of Development Economics, 53 (1), s. 139-155. NORIEGA, A. E., (2004), “Long-run Monetary Neutrality and the Unit-root Hypothesis:
26. Further International Evidence,” The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 15 (2), s. 179-197. OLEKALNS, N., (1996), “Some Further Evidence on the Long-run Neutrality of
27. Money,” Economics Letters, 50, s. 393-398. PHILLIPS, P. C. B., (1987), “Time Series Regression with A Unit Root,” Econometrica, 55, s. 277–301
28. RAHMAN, J. ve TOYODA, T., (2008), “An Empirical Study on Long-Run Neutrality of
29. Money in the Japanese Economy,” Japanese Economy, 35 (3), s. 87-117. SAATÇİOĞLU, C. ve KORAP, L., (2009), “The Search for Co-integration between
30. Money, Prices and Income: Low Frequency Evidence from the Turkish Economy,” MPRA Paper No. 19557.
31. SERLETIS, A. ve KOUSTAS, Z., (1998), “International Evidence on the Neutrality of
32. Money,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 30 (1), s. 1-25. SMITH, J. ve MCALEER, M., (1993), “On the Robustness of Barro's New Classical
33. Unemployment Model,” Applied Economics, 25, s. 349-360. WESTERLUND, J. ve COSTANTINI, M., (2009), “Panel Cointegration and the Neutrality of Money,” Empirical Economics, 36 (1), s. 1-26.
34. YAMAK, R. ve CEYLAN, S., (1997), “Politika Etkisizliği Hipotezinin Sektörel Analizi:
35. Türkiye Örneği,” Erişim tarihi: 17 Mart 2012, http://idari.cu.edu.tr/sempozyum/bil45.htm
36. YAMAK, R. ve KÜÇÜKKALE, Y., (1998), “Anticipated versus Unanticipated Money in
37. Turkey,” Yapi Kredi Economic Review, 9 (1), s. 15-25.