The Relationship Between Industrial Production and Economic Growth: The Case of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Russia

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 20, 20 - 35, 03.01.2025

Rashid Karimi , İbrahim Halil Sugözü

https://doi.org/10.58202/joecopol.1577569

Öz

This study examines the relationship between industrial production and economic growth in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Russia. By analyzing data on the distribution of production and inputs in these countries, the research sheds light on the important role of the industrial sector in driving economic development. The findings reveal a positive and strong relationship between industrial production and economic growth and emphasize the importance of sustained investment and market reforms in promoting sectoral expansion. Through Granger causality tests, the study identifies causal links between economic growth and industrial production, underscoring the potential of targeted policies to boost industrial performance and promote overall economic progress. However, in Kyrgyzstan, growth is impressive for non-industrial sectors, while in Kazakhstan, the contribution of non-industrial sectors to growth is greater. In Russia, both variables interact with each other. These results provide valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders to leverage industrial production as a catalyst for long-term economic prosperity in the region.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Industrial Production, Economic Growth, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia

Sanayi Üretimi ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Kırgızistan, Kazakistan ve Rusya Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma Kırgızistan, Kazakistan ve Rusya'da sanayi üretimi ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Bu ülkelerdeki üretim ve girdilerin dağılımına ilişkin verileri analiz eden araştırma, sanayi sektörünün ekonomik kalkınmayı yönlendirmedeki önemli rolüne ışık tutmaktadır. Bulgular, sanayi üretimi ile ekonomik büyüme arasında pozitif ve güçlü bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymakta ve sektörel genişlemeyi teşvik etmede sürekli yatırım ve piyasa reformlarının önemini vurgulamaktadır. Granger nedensellik testleri aracılığıyla, çalışma ekonomik büyüme ve sanayi üretimi arasındaki nedensel bağlantıları tanımlayarak, hedeflenen politikaların sanayi performansını artırma ve genel ekonomik ilerlemeyi teşvik etme potansiyelinin altını çizmektedir. Bununla birlikte, Kırgızistan'da büyüme sanayi dışı sektörler için etkileyici iken, Kazakistan'da sanayi dışı sektörlerin büyümeye katkısı daha fazladır. Rusya'da her iki değişken de birbiriyle etkileşim halindedir. Bu sonuçlar, politika yapıcılar ve paydaşlar için bölgede uzun vadeli ekonomik refah için bir katalizör olarak sanayi üretiminden yararlanma konusunda değerli bilgiler sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sanayi Üretimi, Ekonomik Büyüme, Kırgızistan, Kazakistan, Rusya

Kaynakça

• Aganbegyan, A.G. (2019). On Immediate Actions to Reinvigorate Social and Economic Growth. Stud. Russ. Econ. Dev. (30), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700719010027
• Aizhan, K., & Diana, M. (2013). Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Development: The Case of Kazakhstan. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(2), 20-31.
• Arısoy, İ. (2013). Testing For the Relationship Between Industrial Sector and Economic Growth İn The Context of Kaldor Hypothesis: The Case for Turkey. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 143-162.
• Bai, J., and Ng, S. (2004). A PANIC Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration. Econometrica, 72(4), 1127-1177.
• Baltagi, B. H., Bratberg E., and Holmås, T. H. (2005). A Panel Data Study of Physicians' Labor Supply: The Case of Norway. Health economics, 14(10), 1035-1045.
• Breitung, J, and Das, S. (2005). Panel Unit Root Tests Under Cross‐Sectional Dependence. Statistica Neerlandica, 59(4), 414-433.
• Bukkvoll, T., Malmlöf, T., & Makienko, K. (2017). The Defence Industry as A Locomotive for Technological Renewal in Russia: Are the Conditions in Place? Post-Communist Economies, 29(2), 232-249.
• Çetin, M. (2009). Empirical Analysis of Kaldor’s Growth Law: The Case of Turkey and European Union Countries (1981-2007). Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11 (1), 355-373.
• CIS STAT (2024). Interstate Statistical Committee of the CIS, http://www.cisstat.com/, Cited 10.09.2024
• Ciccarelli, C., & Fachin, S. (2017). Regional growth with spatial dependence: A case study on early Italian industrialization. Papers in Regional Science, 96(4), 675-696.
• Dinçer, H., Yuksel, S., & Adalı, Z. (2018). Relationship Between Non-Performing Loans, Industry, and Economic Growth of the African Economies and Policy Recommendations for Global Growth. In A. Özer (Ed.), Globalization and Trade Integration in Developing Countries. IGI Global, 203-228. https://doi.org/10.4018/978- 1-5225-4032-8.ch009
• Drakopoulos, S. A., & Theodossiou, I. (1991). Kaldorian approach to Greek economic growth. Applied Economics, 23(10), 1683-1689.
• Dumitrescu, E., and Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing For Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels. Economic modelling 29(4), 1450-1460.
• Goldsmith, R. W. (1961). The Economic Growth of Tsarist Russia 1860-1913. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 9(3), 441-475.
• Hadri, K. (2000). Testing For Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data. The Econometrics Journal, 3(2), 148-161.
• Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., and Rosen, H. S. (1988). Estimating Vector Autoregressions with Panel Data. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 56(6), 1371-1395.
• Hurlin, C., and Mignon, V. (2007). Second Generation Panel Unit Root Tests. halshs-00159842.
• Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., and Shin, Y. (2003). Testing For Unit Roots In Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
• Ivanter, V. V. (2019). Russia's economy: reasons for optimism and opportunities for growth [Экономика России: поводы для оптимизма и возможности для роста]. https://ecfor.ru/publication/ekonomika-rossii-povody-dlya-optimizma/. Cited 08.08.2024.
• Kaldor, N. (1966). Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom. An Inaugural Lecture. London, Cambridge University Press, (40), 5/–. Recherches Économiques de Louvain, 1968, 34(2), 222–222. doi:10.1017/S0770451800040616
• Kaldor, N. (1968). Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing Industry: A Reply. Economica, 35(140), 385-391. Kızılkaya, O., Sofuoğlu, E., & Karaçor, Z. (2016). The Relationship Between Tourism Revenues and Economic Growth in Turkey: ARDL Bound Test Approach. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 23(1), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.18657/yecbu.71790
• Kubar, Y. (2016). Relationship Between Economic Growth and Development Indicators of Less Developed and Developing Countries: A Panel Data Analysis (1995-2010) (1995-2010). Ardahan Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(4), 65-99.
• Levin, I.P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., and Lauriola, M. (2002). A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, And Independence of Types of Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411-429.
• Maddala, G. S., and Wu, S. (1999), A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and A New Simple Test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(1), 631-652.
• Mahonye, N., & Mandishara, L. (2015). Mechanism Between Mining Sector And Economic Growth In Zimbabwe, Is It A Resource Curse?. Environmental Economics, 6(3), 81-92.
• Moon, H. R., and Perron, B. (2004). Testing For a Unit Root in Panels with Dynamic Factors. Journal of econometrics, 122(1), 81-126.
• Moreno-Brid, JC, Santamaría, J., & Rivas Valdivia, JC (2005). NAFTA'dan sonra Meksika'da sanayileşme ve ekonomik büyüme: kat edilen yol. Gelişim ve değişim , 36 (6), 1095-1119.
• North, D. C. (1966). The Economic Growth of the United States 1790-1860. New York: W.W. Norton.
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., and Smith, R J. (2004). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of long-run relationships.
• Romer, P. [1986]. Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy, (94), 1002-1037.
• Runkle, D. E. (1991). A bleak Outlook for The US Economy. Quarterly Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 15(4), 1-11.
• Tang, C. F. (2020). Transmission channels of oil and finance toward promoting growth in China: the role of industrialization. Applied Economics Letters, 27(7), 596-600.
• Tarı, U, Tüysüz, O., Genç, Ş. C., İmren, C., et al. (2013). The Geology and Morphology of The Antakya Graben Between the Amik Triple Junction and The Cyprus Arc. Geodinamica Acta 26(1-2), 27-55.
• Tatoglu, E., Bayraktar E., Sahadev, S., Demirbag M., and Glaister, K. W. (2014). Determinants of Voluntary Environmental Management Practices by MNE Subsidiaries. Journal of World Business 49(4), 536-548.
• Terzi, H., & Oltulular, S. (2004). Causal Relationship Between Industrialization and Economic Growth in Turkey. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5(2), 219-226.
• Usta, C. (2016). Regional analysis of energy consumption-economic growth relationship in Turkey. International Journal of Economics and Innovation, 2(2), 181-201.
• Kara, M.A., & Ciğerlioğlu, O. (2018). Spatial Analysis of the Relationship Between Electricity Consumption and GDP at the Provincial Level in Turkey. ICPESS 2018 Proceedings Vol. 2: Economic Studies. 269-282
• Yamak, N. (2000). Cointegration, Causality and Kaldor’s Hypothesis: Evidence from Turkey, 1946-1995. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 75-80.
• Yılmaz, Ö. G. (2005). The Causality Relationship between Growth and Unemployment Rates in the Turkish Economy [Türkiye Ekonomisinde Büyüme ile İşsizlik Oranları Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi]. Ekonometri ve İstatistik, (2), 63-76.