Türkiye İçin Ricardocu Denkliğin Ekonometrik Testi

Öz

Ricardocu Denklik Hipotezi RDH , kamu harcamaları sonucunda ortaya çıkan bütçe açıklarının finansmanında, borçlanma ya da vergileme yolunun seçilmesinin özel kesimin harcamaları üzerinde bir etkisinin olmayacağını, tüketim- tasarruf- yatırım- faiz ve cari işlemler hesabının da bundan etkilenmeyeceğini ileri sürektedir. Bu çalışma eş bütünleşmeye dayalı FMOLS yöntemiyle Türkiye Ekonomisi üzerine 1975-2013 dönemi yıllık verilerini kullanarak RDH’yi test etmektedir. Buna göre, Türkiye Ekonomisi için RDH geçerli değildir ve hükümet tüketimi özel tüketimi ikame etmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ricardocu Denklik Hipotezi, Türkiye Ekonomisi, Eşbütünleşme, FMOLS, Wald Testi

An Econometric Test of Ricardian Equivalance For Turkey

Öz

asserts that whether a goverment finances its spending with debt or a tax way has no effect on total level of expenditure of private sector, and consumption, savings, investment, interest rates, the current account will not be affected in financing the budget deficit resulted from public spending. This study aims to test validity of REH for the Turkish Economy with annual data of 1975-2013 period by using FMOLS method based on co-integration analysis. The results show that REH doesn’t apply for Turkish Economy and government consumption substitutes private consumption

Anahtar Kelimeler

• The Ricardian Equivalance Hypothesis, Turkish Economy, Cointegration, FMOLS, Wald Test

Kaynakça

1. Afonso, A., (1999), Public Debt Neutrality And Private Consumption Same Evidence From The Euro Area, DGEP Research And Forecasting Deparment, Minustry Of Finance, Working Papers, No:11.
2. Altıntaş, H. ve Çetintaş, H., (2010), “Türkiye’de Ekonomik Büyüme, Beşeri Sermaye ve İhracat Arasındaki İlişki Ekonometrik Analizi: 1970-2005”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 36, Ağustos- Aralık, ss. 33-56.
3. Arıcan, E., (2005), “Ricardocu Denklik Teoremi ve Teorilerde Kamu Açıklarına ilişkin Yaklaşımlar: Türkiye Ekonomisine İlişkin Bir Uygulama”, Marmara Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Cilt: XX, Sayı:1, ss.77-94.
4. Arestis, P., Demetriades, P.O. and Luintel, B.K., (2001), “Financial Development and Economic Growth: The Role of Stock Markets”, Jornal of Money, Credit and Banking, 33 (1), February.
5. Ata, A.Y. ve Yücel, F., (2003), “Eş Bütünleşme ve Nedensellik Testleri Altında İkiz Açıklar Hipotezi: Türkiye Uygulaması”, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, cilt:12, sayı: 12, ss. 97-110.
6. Barro, R.J., (1974), “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?”, Journal of Political Economy, ss. 1095-1117.
7. Barro, R.J., (1989), “The Ricardian Approach to Budget Deficits”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3 (2), pp. 37-54.
8. Bernheim, B.D., (1987), Ricardian Equivalance: an Evaluation of Theory and Evidence, NBER Working Papers, No: 2330.

9. Buchanan, J.M., (1976), “Barro on the Ricardian Equivalance Theorem”, Journal of Poitical Economy, 84 (2), pp. 337-342.
10. Charemza, W.W. and Deadman, D.F., (1997), New Directions in Econometric Practice, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
11. Çebi, C. ve Çulha, A.A., (2013), “The Effects of Government Spending Shocks on the Real Exchange Rate and Trade Balance in Turkey”, TCMB Working Paper, No. 13/37.
12. Çetin, A., (2005), “Kamu Borçlarının Makro Ekonomik Etkileri: Ampirik Analiz”, Gaziosman Paşa Üniversitesi, İİBF Dergisi, cilt:19, sayı:1, ss.68-79.
13. Dickey, A.D., ve Fuller, A.W., (1981), “Likelihood Ratio Statistics For Autoregressive Time Series With A Unit Root”, Econometrica, 49 (4), ss. 1057-1072 http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rlo/readings/278800.pdf, (01.02.2014).
14. Erdoğan, S. ve Yıldırım, D.Ç., (2014), “The Relationship Between The Budget Deficit and Current Account Deficit in Turkey”, Emerging Markets Journal, 3 (3), ss. 81 – 86.
15. Feldstein, M., (1980), Government Deficits and Aggregate Demand, NBER Working Paper, No: 435, pp. 1-38.
16. Giorgiani, G. and Holden, K., (2001), Does The Ricardian Equivalance Proposition Hold In Less Developed Countries, pp. 1-8. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0269217032000064062, (05.01.2015).
17. Gujarati, D.N., (1995), Temel Ekonometri, Literatür Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
18. Johansen, S., (1988), “Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, pp. 231-254
19. Johansen, S., (1992), “Determination of Cointegration Rank in The Presence of a Linear Trend”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 54 (3), pp. 383-397.
20. Johansen, S. and Juselius, K., (1990), “Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration –With Application to the Demand for Money”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, pp. 169-210.
21. Johansen, S. and Juselius, K., (1992), “Testing Structural Hypothesis in A Multivariate Cointegration Analysis of the PPP and the UIP for UK”, Journal of Econometrics, 53, pp. 211-244.
22. Kayhan, S., Bayat, T. ve Yüzbaşı, B., (2013), “Government Expenditures and Trade Deficit in Turkey: Time Domain and Frequency Domain Analyses”, Economic Modelling, 35, ss. 153 – 158.
23. Kormendi, R.C., (1983), Government Spending And Private Sector Behavior; American Economic Review, S. 73, pp. 944-1010.
24. Kör, E., (2012), “İkiz Açıklar Hipotezi: Türkiye Örneği”, Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara.
25. Kwiatskowski, D., Phillips, P.C.B., Schmidt, P. and Shin, Y., (1992), “Testing The Null Hypothesis of Stiationary Against The Alternative of Unit Root:” How Sure are We That Economic Time Series Have a Unit Root ? Journal of Econometries, 54, pp. 159-178.
26. Marinheiro, C.F., (2001), Ricardian Equivalance an Emprical Application to the Portequese Economy No: 11, pp. 2 - 46.
27. http://econweb.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/internationale.economie/home/Publication s/CES_DPS/Dps0112.pdf, (08.02.2015).
28. Pereleman, S. and Pierre, P., (1993), The Determinants of The Ricardian Equivalence in The OECD Countries, in H. A. Verbon and F.A. Van Winden (eds), The Political Economy Of Government Debt, Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 181- 194.
29. Phillips, P.C.B. and. Hansen, B.E., (1990), “Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I (1) Processes,” Review of Economics Studies, 57, pp. 99-125.
30. Rauf, A. ve Khan, A.Q., (2011), “An Empirical Study to Find the Relationship Between Trade Deficit and Budget Deficit in Pakistan”, Academic Research International, 1 (3), ss. 36 – 46.
31. Sukar, A. and Hassan, S., (2001), “US Exports and Time –Varying Volatility of Real Exchange Rate”, Global Finance Journal 21, pp. 109-119.
32. Şen, E., (2007), “İkiz Açıklar İlişkisi (Türkiye Analizi: 1983-2005 Dönemi)”, Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 155s.
33. Tarı, R., (2014), Ekonometri, Umuttepe Yayınları, Kocaeli.
34. Uğurlu, E., ve Düzgün, R., (2009), “Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Ricardo Eşitliği Hipotezinin Test Edilmesi”, Marmara Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Cilt: XXVI, Sayı: 1,ss. 99-115.
35. Waquas, M. ve Awan, M.S., (2011), Are, Pakistan Consumer Ricardian ?, Economic and Business Review, sayı: 3, ss.161-177.
36. Yay, T., (1996), “Ricardocu Denklik Teoremi”, İşletme ve Finans Ansiklopedisi, ss. 1342-1348. http://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0 CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fturanyay.org%2Ffiles%2Fother%2Fricardo.pdf&ei =btkKVYzbCeb8ygPy5oDQDw&usg=AFQjCNF5FDlTDkJbfFNeqADQNpjSb-tmvw, (19.03.2015).
37. Yıldırım, K., Karaman, D. ve Taşdemir, M., (2009), Makroekonomi, Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara.
38. Zengin, A., (2000), “İkiz Açıklar Hipotezi: Türkiye Uygulaması Ekonomik Yaklaşım”, Gazi Üniversitesi, 2 (35), ss.37-67.