Türkiye’de Ulaşım ve Ekonomik Göstergeler Arasındaki Yayılma Etkileri

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 1 - 23, 23.04.2020

Mehmet Aldonat Beyzatlar

Öz

Bu çalışma, çeşitliliği ve olanakları açısından farklı ulaşım ölçümleri ve ekonomik faaliyetler arasındaki yayılma etkilerini incelemektedir. Türkiye’nin 1970-2018 dönemi yıllık frekans verileri kullanılarak Diebold ve Yılmaz (2012) yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Bu yöntem sayesinde değişkenler arasında karşılıklı ve çoklu yayılma etki parametreleri elde edilebilmektedir. Her bir değişkenden tümüne, tümünden de tek bir değişkene ve bu iki parametreden oluşan net yayılma etkileri, son olarak da tüm veri setini içeren toplam yayılma etkisi hesaplanmıştır. Uygulanan bu yöntem sayesinde değişkenler arasındaki ilişki ağı konvansiyonel yöntemlerden ayrışmaktadır ve bu şekilde ulaşım ekonomisi alanında özgün bir katkı sunulmaktadır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre ulaşım mobilitesi ile GSYİH ve üretim endeksi arasındaki yayılmalar ön plana çıkarken genel olarak ekonomik değişkelerdeki yayılma etkileri istikrarlı ekonomi politikaları için ulaşım politikalarına verilmesi gereken öneme işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ulaşım, mobilite, yayılma etkileri, Türkiye

Kaynakça

• Aschauer, David Alan. Is public expenditure productive? Journal of monetary economics, 1989, 23.2: 177-200.
• Berndt, Ernst R.; Hansson, Bengt. Measuring the contribution of public infrastructure capital in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, 151-168.
• Deno, Kevin T. The effect of public capital on US manufacturing activity: 1970 to 1978. Southern Economic Journal, 1988, 400-411.
• Fernald, John G. Roads to prosperity? Assessing the link between public capital and productivity. American economic review, 1999, 89.3: 619-638.
• Garcia-Mila, Teresa; McGuire, Therese J.; Porter, Robert H. The effect of public capital in state-level production functions reconsidered. The review of economics and statistics, 1996, 177-180.
• Hulten, Charles R.; Schwab, Robert M. Public capital formation and the growth of regional manufacturing industries. National Tax Journal, 1991, 121-134.
• Boarnet, Marlon G. The direct and indirect economic effects of transportation infrastructure. University of California Transportation Center Berkeley, 1996.
• Baum-Snow, Nathaniel. Did highways cause suburbanization? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2007, 122.2: 775-805. Vandenbroucke, Guillaume. The US westward expansion. International Economic Review, 2008, 49.1: 81-110.
• Lichter, Daniel T.; Fuguitt, Glenn V. Demographic response to transportation innovation: the case of the interstate highway. Social Forces, 1980, 59.2: 492-512.
• Beyzatlar, Mehmet Aldonat; Karacal, Müge; Yetkiner, Hakan. Granger-causality between transportation and GDP: A panel data approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2014, 63: 43-55.
• Beyzatlar, Mehmet Aldonat; Yetkiner, Hakan. Convergence in transportation measures across the EU-15. Transportation, 2017, 44.5: 927-940.
• Brugnoli, Alberto, et al. The impact of air transportation on trade flows: A natural experiment on causality applied to Italy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2018, 112: 95-107.
• Jiwattanakulpaisarn, Piyapong; Noland, Robert B.; Graham, Daniel J. Causal linkages between highways and sector-level employment. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2010, 44.4: 265-280.
• Machado, Emerson Ribeiro, et al. The vulnerability of the environment to spills of dangerous substances on highways: A diagnosis based on Multi Criteria Modeling. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 2018, 62: 748-759.
• Maparu, Tuhin Subhra; Mazumder, Tarak Nath. Transport infrastructure, economic development and urbanization in India (1990–2011): Is there any causal relationship? Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 2017, 100: 319-336.
• Mukkala, Kirsi; Tervo, Hannu. Air transportation and regional growth: which way does the causality run? Environment and Planning A, 2013, 45.6: 1508-1520.
• Saidi, Samir; Shahbaz, Muhammad; Akhtar, Pervaiz. The long-run relationships between transport energy consumption, transport infrastructure, and economic growth in MENA countries. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2018, 111: 78-95.
• Van de Vijver, Elien; Derudder, Ben; Witlox, Frank. Air passenger transport and regional development: Cause and effect in Europe. Promet-Traffic&Transportation, 2016, 28.2: 143-154.
• Jin, Jang C. Openness and growth: an interpretation of empirical evidence from East Asian countries. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 2000, 9.1: 5-17.
• Lee, Taihyeong; Mokhtarian, Patricia L. Correlations between industrial demands (direct and total) for communications and transportation in the US economy 1947–1997. Transportation, 2008, 35.1: 1-22.
• Eberts, Randall W. Some empirical evidence on the linkage between public infrastructure and local economic development. Industry location and public policy, 1991, 83-96.
• Felloni, Fabrizio, et al. Infrastructure and agricultural production: Cross-country evidence and implications for China. TW.-2001-103. Washington State University: Pullman, 2001.
• Deno, Kevin T. The effect of public capital on US manufacturing activity: 1970 to 1978. Southern Economic Journal, 1988, 400-411.
• Lichter, Daniel T.; Fuguitt, Glenn V. Demographic response to transportation innovation: the case of the interstate highway. Social Forces, 1980, 59.2: 492-512.
• Diebold, Francis X.; Yilmaz, Kamil. Better to give than to receive: Predictive directional measurement of volatility spillovers. International Journal of Forecasting, 2012, 28.1: 57-66.
• Diebold, Francis X.; Yilmaz, Kamil. Measuring financial asset return and volatility spillovers, with application to global equity markets. The Economic Journal, 2009, 119.534: 158-171.
• Koop, Gary; Pesaran, M. Hashem; Potter, Simon M. Impulse response analysis in nonlinear multivariate models. Journal of econometrics, 1996, 74.1: 119-147.
• Pesaran, H. Hashem; Shin, Yongcheol. Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Economics letters, 1998, 58.1: 17-29.
• Dickey, David A.; Fuller, Wayne A. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American statistical association, 1979, 74.366a: 427-431.
• Elliott, G.; Rothenberg, T. J.; Stock, J. H. Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 1996, 64.4: 813-836.
• MacKinnon, James G. Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of applied econometrics, 1996, 11.6: 601-618.