The effect of geopolitical risk on economic growth: Empirical evidence from the Fragile Five Countries

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3, 978 - 990, 31.07.2021

Emrah Doğan , Başak Özarslan Doğan

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.804425

Cited By: 4

Öz

Growth differences between countries have many reasons such as qualified workforce, technology level, natural resources, political and geographical factors as well as risk level. In this context, the effect of geopolitical risk on economic growth for fragile five countries empirically tested. The study was analyzed with the help of panel dataset containing fragile fives of 1985-2017 period and using the Augmented Mean Group Estimator method. In order to determine the effects of geopolitical risk on economic growth, the relationship between real GDP per capita and geopolitical risk index, fixed capital investments and labor force was estimated. According to the empirical results obtained, the effect of geopolitical risk on economic growth was found to be negative and statistically significant in fragile fives countries. On the other hand, the effect of labor and fixed capital investments on economic growth was observed as positive and statistically significant.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Jeopolitical risk, Economic growth, Panel data, Fragile fives.

Jeopolitik riskin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: Kırılgan Beşli ülkelerinden ampirik kanıtlar

Öz

Ülkeler arasında meydana gelen büyüme farklılıklarının sahip olunan nitelikli işgücü, teknoloji düzeyi, doğal kaynaklar, siyasi ve coğrafi etkenlerin yanı sıra risk düzeyi gibi birçok sebebi vardır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada Kırılgan Beşli Ülkeler için jeopolitik riskin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi ampirik olarak incelenmiştir. Çalışma, 1985-2017 dönemi kırılgan beşli ülkeleri içeren panel veri seti yardımıyla ve Genişletilmiş Ortalama Grup (Augmented Mean Group) Tahmincisi yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada jeopolitik riskin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkilerini belirleyebilmek için, kişi başına Reel GSYİH ile jeopolitik risk endeksi, sabit sermaye yatırımları ve işgücü arasındaki ilişki tahmin edilmiştir. Elde edilen ampirik sonuçlara göre, kırılgan beşli ülkelerinde jeopolitik riskin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi negatif ve istatistiki olarak anlamlı olarak bulunmuştur. Öte yandan işgücü ve sabit sermaye yatırımlarının ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi ise pozitif ve istatistiki anlamlı olarak gözlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Jeopolitik Risk, Ekonomik Büyüme, Panel Veri, Kırılgan Beşli

Kaynakça

• Acemoglu, D. (2012). Introduction to economic growth. Journal of economic theory, 147(2), 545-550.
• Akadiri, S. S., Eluwole, K. K., Akadiri, A. C., & Avci, T. (2020). Does causality between geopolitical risk, tourism and economic growth matter? Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43, 273-277.
• Akbas, Y. E. (2020). The effects of exchange rate pass-through and cost channel on price level: The case of fragile five countries. Applied Economics, 52(25), 2705-2722.
• Antonakakis, N., Gupta, R., Kollias, C., & Papadamou, S. (2017). Geopolitical risks and the oil-stock nexus over 1899–2016. Finance Research Letters, 23, 165-173.
• Arslan, C. K. (2019) Jeopolitik Riskin Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Üzerindeki Etkisi. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(6), 477-485.
• Aysan, A. F., Demir, E., Gozgor, G., & Lau, C. K. M. (2019). Effects of the geopolitical risks on Bitcoin returns and volatility. Research in International Business and Finance, 47, 511-518.
• Bekaert, G., Harvey, C. R., Lundblad, C. T., & Siegel, S. (2014). Political risk spreads. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(4), 471-493.
• Bezgin, M. S. (2019). Türkiye’nin Jeopolitik Riski’nin Borsa İstanbul Endeks Getirileri Üzerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi. 18th International National Business Congress Breusch, T. S ve Pagan, A. R. (1980), The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its applications to model specification tests in econometrics”, Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239-53.
• Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2018). Measuring geopolitical risk. FRB International Finance Discussion Paper, (1222).
• Caldara, D. & Iacoviello, M. (2019). Measuring geopolitical risk, Working paper, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board.
• Cheng, C. H. J., & Chiu, C. W. J. (2018). How important are global geopolitical risks to emerging countries?. International economics, 156, 305-325.
• Çetin, D. (2019) Türkiye’de jeopolitik risk ve İslami Hisse Senedi Endeksi (Katılım 30) arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi: Ampirik bir analiz. International Congress of Islamic Economy, Finance and Ethics (p. 108).
• Dedeoğlu, D., Öğüt, K., & Pişkin, A. (2019). Yönetişim kalitesi, jeopolitik risk ve doğrudan yabancı yatırım ilişkisi: Gelişmekte olan ülkeler örneği. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 56(650), 51-69.
• Eberhardt, Markus; Bond, Stephen (2009). Cross-Section Dependence in Non-Stationary panel models: A novel estimator”. Munich Personal Repec Archive (MPRA) Papers, 17692, 1-28.
• Eberhardt, Markus; Teal, Francis (2011). Econometrics for Grumblers: A New Look at the Literature on Cross-Country Growth Empirics”. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25 (1), 109–155.
• Eberhardt, Markus.; Teal, Francis (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production. University of Oxford Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series, 515, 1-32.
• Kerim, H. (2020). Jeopolitik riskin Türkiye turizmine etkisi (Doctoral dissertation, TC İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Turizm İşletmeciliği Anabilim Dalı).
• Mahmud M. A., (2015). Econometric model on population growth and economic development in India: An empirical analysis, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Emerging Trends in Social Science Research, Chennai-India, 3-5 April 2015 Paper ID: C539.
• Pan, W. F. (2019). Geopolitical risk and R&D investment. Available at SSRN 3258111.
• Pesaran, Hashem M. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22 (2), 265-312.
• Pesaran, Hashem M. (2004).General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. IZA Discussion Papers, 1240, 1-39.
• Peseran, M. H. (2006). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of Crosssection Dependecy. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 0346.
• Rice, Amy, Vehbi, Tugrul & Wong, Benjamin. 2018. Measuring uncertainty and its impact on the New Zealand economy. Reserve Bank of New Zealand Analytical Note Series, No: AN2018/01, 1-19.
• Saint Akadiri, S., Eluwole, K. K., Akadiri, A. C., & Avci, T. (2019). Does causality between geopolitical risk, tourism and economic growth matter? Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43, 273-277 .
• Sethy, S. K., & Sahoo, H. (2015). Investigating the relationship between population and economic growth: An analytical study of India. Indian Journal of Economics and Business, 14, 269-288.
• Tatoğlu, Ferda (2013). İleri Panel Veri Analizi 2. İstanbul:Beta Basım A.Ş: İstanbul, 239-240.
• Tumwebaze, H. K., & Ijjo, A. T. (2015). Regional economic integration and economic growth in the COMESA region, 1980- 2010. African Development Review, 27, 67-77.
• Üzar, U., & Akyazı, H. (2018). Ekonomik Büyüme ve İşsizlik Arasındaki İlişkinin OECD Ülkeleri Düzeyinde Ekonometrik Bir Analizi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 463-479.
• Westerlund, Joakim (2007). Testing For Error Correction İn Panel Data. Oxford Bulletin Of Economics And Statistics, 69, (6), 709-747.