Does Foreign Direct Investment Contribute to Decrease Unemployment in Türkiye? Nonlinear ARDL and Asymmetric Causality Approaches

Öz

This study explores the symmetric and asymmetric effects of inward FDI on unemployment by using data from Türkiye from 1988 to 2020. ARDL (Autoregressive Distributed Lag), NARDL (Nonlinear Autoregressive Distributed Lag) and asymmetric causality test are applied to identify impacts of FDI on unemployment. While ARDL findings show no cointegration relationship, the NARDL findings prove the cointegration relationship between the variables. According to NARDL findings, in the long run, while a rise in FDI decreases unemployment, a reduction in FDI increases unemployment. Also, NARDL findings concur with the asymmetric causality test results. Positive shocks in FDI are seen as the cause of negative shocks in unemployment. Moreover, negative shocks in FDI are seen as the cause of positive shocks in unemployment. As a result, the analysis clearly demonstrates that FDI has a crucial impact on unemployment in Türkiye. Considering that Türkiye ranks 29th in the list of countries attracting foreign direct investment, it is understood that rule-based and incentive policies are necessary in order to attract more amount of FDI.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Foreign Direct Investment
• Unemployment
• NARDL
• asymmetric causality

Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımları Türkiye’de İşsizliği Düşürmeye Katkı Sağlıyor mu? Doğrusal Olmayan ARDL ve Asimetrik Nedensellik Yaklaşımları

Öz

Bu çalışmada doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırım girişi ve işsizlik arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, Türkiye’ye ait 1988-2020 dönemini kapsayan yıllık veriler kullanılarak ARDL (gecikmesi dağıtılmış otoregresif model), NARDL (doğrusal olmayan gecikmesi dağıtılmış otoregresif model) ve asimetrik nedensellik testleri uygulanmıştır. ARDL modeli değişkenler arasında eşbütünleşme olmadığı sonucunu verirken, NARDL modelinde değişkenler arasında eşbütünleşme olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. NARDL modeli bulgularına göre, uzun dönemde doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarındaki artış işsizliği azaltırken, doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarındaki azalma işsizliği artırmaktadır. Ayrıca, NARDL bulguları asimetrik nedensellik testi sonuçlarıyla uyumludur. Doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarındaki pozitif şoklar, işsizlikteki negatif şokların nedeni olarak görülmektedir. Ayrıca doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarındaki negatif şoklar, işsizlikteki pozitif şokların nedeni olarak tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, analiz, doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının Türkiye'de işsizlik üzerinde önemli bir etkiye sahip olduğunu açıkça göstermektedir. Doğrudan yabancı yatırım çeken ülkeler sıralamasında Türkiye’nin 29. sırada olduğu göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, daha fazla doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımı çekebilmek için kurala dayalı, teşvik edici ve kararlı politikaların gerekli olduğu anlaşılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımları
• işsizlik
• NARDL
• asimetrik nedensellik

Kaynakça

1. Abor, J. ve Harvey, S. K. (2008). Foreign direct investment and employment: host country experience. Macroeconomics and finance in emerging market economies, 1(2), 213-225.
2. Arize, A. C., Malindretos, J. ve Igwe, E.U. (2017). Do exchange rate changes improve the trade balance: An asymmetric nonlinear cointegration approach. International Review of Economics & Finance, 49, 313-326.
3. Balcerzak, A. P. ve Zurek, M. (2011). Foreign direct investment and unemployment: VAR analysis for Poland in the years 1995-2009.
4. Bayar, Y. (2014). Effects of economic growth, export and foreign direct investment inflows on unemployment in Türkiye. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, (11, Iss. 2), 20-27.
5. Canbay, Ş. ve Kırca, M. (2020). Türkiye’de doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının işsizlik üzerine etkileri: 1991-2016 dönemi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 11(26), 154-163.
6. Efe, B. (2002). Küreselleşme sürecinde doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının analizi : İzmir örneği. İzmir : İzmir Ticaret Odası.
7. Engle, R. F. ve Granger, C.W. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 251-276.
8. Erçakar, M. E. ve Güvenoğlu, H. (2018). Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların İşsizlik Üzerine Etkisi: Türkiye Uygulaması (1980-2016). Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(ICEESS’18), 349-356.

9. Fousekis, P., Katrakilidis, C. ve Trachanas, E. (2016). Vertical price transmission in the US beef sector: Evidence from the nonlinear ARDL model. Economic Modelling, 52, 499-506.
10. Garang, A. P. M., Kassouri, Y. ve Thierry, K. K. Y. (2018). Time series bounds approach to foreign direct investment, unemployment and economic growth in Uganda. Mod. Econ. 9, 87–96, 01.
11. Grahovac, D. ve Softić, S. (2017). Impact of the FDI on Unemployment rate in countries of West Balkan. Review of Innovation and Competitiveness: A Journal of Economic and Social Research, 3(2), 65- 82.
12. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 424-438.
13. Granger, C. W. ve Yoon, G. (2002). Hidden cointegration. U of California, Economics Working Paper, (2002-02).
14. Hacker, R. S. ve Hatemi-J, A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: theory and application. Applied Economics, 38(13), 1489-1500.
15. Harms, P. ve Méon, P. G. (2011). An FDI is an FDI is an FDI? The growth effects of greenfield investment and mergers and acquisitions in developing countries (No. 11.10). Working Paper, Study Center Gerzensee.
16. Hatemi-j, A. (2012). Asymmetric causality tests with an application. Empirical economics, 43 (1), 447-456.
17. Hill, C. (2011). International business: Competing in the global marketplace. , 8th edition, New York: McGraw Hill.
18. Hisarciklilar, M., Gultekin-Karakas, D. ve Asici, A. A. (2014). Can FDI be a panacea for unemployment?: The Turkish case. In Labor and employment relations in a globalized world (pp. 43-70). Springer, Cham.
19. Hoggarth, G. ve Sterne G. (1997). Capital flows: causes, consequences and policy responses. Handbooks in Central Banking, No 14. CCBS,Bank of England.
20. Irpan, H. M., Saad, R. M., Nor, A. H. S. M., & Ibrahim, N. (2016). Impact of foreign direct investment on the unemployment rate in Malaysia. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 710, No. 1, p. 012028). IOP Publishing.
21. Jenkins, R. (2006). Globalization, FDI and Employment in Viet Nam. Transnational Corporations, 15 (1), pp. 115-142.
22. Johansen, S. ve Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration-with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52 (2), 169-210.
23. Johnny, N., Timipere, E. T., Krokeme, O. ve Markjackson, D. (2018). Impact of foreign direct investment on unemployment rate in Nigeria (1980- 2015). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(3), 57-69.
24. Lee, H. H. ve Park, D. (2020). Effects of inward and outward greenfield FDI on employment by domestic firms: the korean experience. Korea and the World Economy, 21(1), 1-33.
25. Malik, S. K. (2019). Foreign direct investment and employment in Indian manufacturing industries. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 62(4), 621-637.
26. Moosa, I. A. (2002). Foreign direct investment: theory, evidence, and practice. New York: Palgrave.
27. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16 (3), 289-326.
28. Phillips, P. C. ve Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57 (1), 99-125.
29. Seyidoğlu, H. (2015). Uluslararası iktisat. İstanbul: Güzem Can Yayınları.
30. Shahzad, S. J. H., Nor, S. M., Ferrer, R. ve Hammoudeh, S. (2017). Asymmetric determinants of CDS spreads: US industry-level evidence through the NARDL approach. Economic Modelling, 60, 211-230.
31. Sharma, A. ve Cardenas, O. (2018). The labor market effects of FDI: A panel data evidence from Mexico. International Economic Journal, 32(4), 572-588.
32. Shin, Y., Yu, B. ve Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt (pp. 281-314). Springer, New York, NY.
33. Şıklar, İ. ve Kocaman, M. (2018). FDI and macroeconomic stability: The Turkish case. European Financial and Accounting Journal, 13(1), 19-40.
34. Toda, H. Y. ve T . Yamamoto. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66, 225-250.
35. UNCTAD (1994). World Investment Report1994: Transnational corporations, employment and the workplace. New York and Geneva: United Nations.
36. UNCTAD. (1999). World investment report: foreign direct investment and the challenge of development. Genava: United Nations
37. Wang, M. ve Sunny Wong, M. C. (2009). What drives economic growth? The case of cross‐border M&A and greenfield FDI activities. Kyklos, 62(2), 316-330.
38. Yalman, İ. N. ve Koşaroğlu, Ş. M. (2017). Effect of direct foreign investments on economic growth and unemployment. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, 1(2), 191-205.
39. Yıldırım, D. Ç. ve Çevik, E. İ. (2017). Finansal dişa açiklik ile ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: asimetrik nedensellik testi. MPRA Paper, No. 80472.
40. Zeb, N., Qiang, F. ve Sharif, M. S. (2014). Foreign direct investment and unemployment reduction in Pakistan. International Journal of Economics and Research, 5(2), 10-17.
41. Zivot, E. ve Andrews, D.W. K. (2002). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20 (1), 25-44.