Kuznets Hipotezi’nin Geçerliğinin Yumuşak Geçişli Panel Regresyon Modeli ile Analizi

Öz

Reel GSYH’deki artış biçiminde tanımlanabilen ekonomik büyüme, bireysel refah artışını tam olarak yansıtamayabilir. Bunun için ekonomik büyümenin yanı sıra gelir dağılımının da dikkate alınması önem arz etmektedir. Bu iki değişkenin gerek gelişim seyrini gerekse birbirleriyle olan ilişkisini inceleyen çalışmalar, iktisat literatüründe geniş yer tutmaktadır. Temel amacı, gelir dağılımı ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koyan Kuznets Hipotezinin seçilmiş ülke grubu için geçerliliğini araştırmak olan bu çalışmada, 20 Avrupa Birliği üye ülkesi için 2005-2019 dönemine ait reel kişi başı GSYH değerleri ve Gini katsayıları kullanılarak yumuşak geçişli panel regresyon (PSTR) modeli tahmin edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre, ekonomik büyümenin gelir dağılımı üzerine etkisinin ters-U biçiminde olduğunu ifade eden Kuznets Hipotezi, incelenen dönemde seçili ülke grubu için de geçerlidir. Bu bağlamda incelenen ülke grubu ve dönem için gelir dağılımı eşitsizliğinin, satın alma gücü paritesine göre hesaplanmış reel kişi başı GSYH’nin 11.524 $’lık eşik düzeyine kadar arttığı, söz konusu düzey geçildikten sonra ise azalmaya başladığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Gelir Dağılımı
• Kuznets Hipotezi
• Yumuşak Geçişli Panel Regresyon

Analysis of the Validity of Kuznets Hypothesis with Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model

Öz

Economic growth is defined as the increase in real GDP. However, economic growth may not fully reflect the increase in individual welfare. Therefore, it is important to consider income distribution as well as economic growth. Studies examining both the course of development of these two variables and their relationship with each other have a large place in the economic literature. The aim of this study is to investigate the validity of the Kuznets Hypothesis, which reveals the relationship between income distribution and economic growth, for the selected country group. For this purpose, panel smooth transition regression (PSTR) model is estimated by using real per capita GDP values and Gini coefficients of the 20 European Union member states for the period of 2005-2019. According to the findings of the study, Kuznets Hypothesis, which states that the effect of economic growth on income distribution is in inverted-U format, is valid for the selected country group in the period. The threshold income level for the selected country group and the period studied was determined as $ 11.524 (ppp). Income inequality increases up to the threshold income level. Income inequality decreases after the threshold income level is exceeded.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic Growth
• Income Distribution
• Kuznets Hypothesis
• Panel Smooth Transition Regression

Kaynakça

1. Ahluwalia, M. 1976. cIncome Distribution and Development: Some Stylized Facts.” American Economic Review 66(2): 128–135. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:66:y:1976:i:2:p:128-35.
2. Angeles, L. 2010. “An alternative test of Kuznets’ hypothesis.” The Journal of Economic Inequality 8(4): 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-009-9117-4.
3. Barro, R. J. 2000. “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries. ” Journal of Economic Growth 5(1): 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009850119329.
4. Branco, K. J., & Williamson, J. B. 1988. “Economic Development and Income Distribution: A Cross-National Analysis.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 47(3): 277–297. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3486472
5. Çakmak, A. İ., & Tosun, B. 2017. “Ekonomik Büyüme-Gelir Dağılımı İlişkisi: Kuznets Hipotezinin Seçilmiş Ülkeler Üzerine Araştırılması.” Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 33: 33–44.
6. Deininger, K., & Squire, L. 1996. “A New Data Set Measuring Income Inequality.” The World Bank Economic Review 10(3): 565–591. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3990058.
7. Deutsch, J., & Silber, J. 2004. “Measuring the Impact of Various Income Sources on the Link between Inequality and Development: Implications for the Kuznets Curve.” Review of Development Economics 8(1): 110–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2004.00223.
8. Forbes, K. J. 2000. “A Reassessment of the Relationship between Inequality and Growth.” American Economic Review 90(4): 869–887. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.869.

9. Fouquau, J., Hurlin, C., & Rabaud, I. 2008. “The Feldstein-Horioka puzzle: A panel smooth transition regression approach.” Economic Modelling 25(2):284–299. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecmode:v:25:y:2008:i:2:p:284-299.
10. Gonzalez, A., Teräsvirta, T., & van Dijk, D. 2005. Panel Smooth Transition Regression Models (Research Paper Series, Issue 165). Quantitative Finance Research Centre, University of Technology, Sydney. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:uts:rpaper:165
11. Güloğlu, B., & Nazlıoğlu, Ş. 2013. “Impacts of Inflation on Agricultural Prices: Panel Smooth Transition Regression Analysis. ” Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi 1(1–20).
12. Hansen, B. 1999. “Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference. ” Journal of Econometrics93(2) 345–368.
13. Huang, H.-C. (River), Lin, Y.-C., & Yeh, C.-C. 2012. “An appropriate test of the Kuznets hypothesis.” Applied Economics Letters 19(1): 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2011.566172.
14. International Monetary Fund. (2018). World Economic Outlook.
15. Karhan, G., & Güdelci, E. N. 2017. “Gelir Dağılımı Ve Ekonomik Kalkınma İlişkisi (Kuznet’s Hipotezi): Yumuşak Geçişli Panel Regresyon (PSTR) Analizi.” Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research 15: 2143–2148.
16. Kuznets, S. 1955. “Economic Growth and Income Inequality.” The American Economic Review 45(1): 1–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811581.
17. Kuznets, S. 1963. “Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations: VIII. Distribution of Income by Size.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 11(2): 1–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1152605.
18. Maddison Project Database. (n.d.). https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/blog/blog-11-01-2018-maddison-project-database-2018?lang=en
19. Ogwang, T. 1995. “The Economic Development-Income Inequality Nexus. ” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 54(2): 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1995.tb02695.x.
20. Panizza, U. 2002. “Income Inequality and Economic Growth: Evidence from American Data. ” Journal of Economic Growth 7(1): 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013414509803.
21. Papanek, G. F., & Kyn, O. 1986. “The Effect on Income Distribution of Development, The Growth Rate and Economic Strategy.” Journal of Development Economics 23(1): 55–65. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:deveco:v:23:y:1986:i:1:p:55-65.
22. Paukert, F. 1973. “Income distribution at different levels of development: A survey of evidence.” International Labour Review 108: 97–125.
23. Rehman, H. U. R., Khan, S., & Ahmed, I. 2008. “Income Distribution, Growth and Financial Development: A Cross Countries Analysis.” Pakistan Economic and Social Review 46(1): 1–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25825321.
24. Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2012. The Price of Inequality: [how Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future]. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Tokatlıoğlu, İ., & Atan, M. 2007. “Türkiye’de Bölgeler Arası Gelişmişlik Düzeyi ve Gelir Dağılımı Eşitsizliği: Kuznets Eğrisi Geçerli Mi?” Ekonomik Yaklasim, 18, 25–58.
25. Zang, H. 1998. “The Stability of The Kuznets Curve: Some Further Evidence. ” Applied Economics Letters 5(3): 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/758521367.
26. Zhan, J. 2016. “Is There a Kuznets Curve in China’s Rural Area?An Empirical Analysis on Provincial Panel Data. ” Modern Economy 7(4): 391–398.
27. Zhou, X., & Li, K.-W. 2011. “Inequality and Development: Evidence from Semiparametric Estimation with Panel Data.” Economics Letters 113(3): 203–207. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.07.013.