Türkiye's Unique Circle: Is Competitive Exchange Rate a Solution?

Öz

As in most cases, need to be questioned Turkey's monetary policy tools for economic development in the country's savings. With the decisions taken after 2015, this understanding has created a unique circle in a way that will greatly advance the country's economy. The economic management in the country is being trained in this negative situation. In this study, the mutual causality relationship between the exchange rate, inflation and interest, which are the main targeting areas of the monetary policy, which puts the savings rate and the country's economy in a corrosive cycle, is tried to be explained with the method developed by Toda-Yamamoto (1995). According to results of this analysis the competitive exchange rate strategy does not have a significant effect on savings. It is possible to conclude that reverse savings may be the cause of the competitive exchange rate. In other words, the preference for a competitive exchange rate strategy due to the lack of savings can be seen as significant in this study. In Turkey, like many other developing countries, steps to achieve economic development must be viewed not only through the lens of monetary policy but also from the perspective of planning that ensures policy coherence, given the country's chronic issues.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Competitive Exchange Rate
• Savings
• Toda-Yamamoto Causality Test
• Planning

Türkiye’nin Özgün Sarmalı: Rekabetçi Kur Çözüm mü?

Öz

Çoğu gelişmekte olan ülke gibi tasarruf etmekte güçlük çeken Türkiye’nin ekonomik gelişim için yalnızca para politikası araçlarını kullanıyor oluşunun sorgulanması gerekmektedir. Bu anlayış çerçevesinde alınan kararlarla birlikte ülke ekonomisini büyük sorunlara sürükleyen bir özgün sarmal oluşturmuş, artık ekonomik sıkıntılara geçici çözümler bulmak bile güç duruma gelmiştir. Ülkedeki ekonomi yönetimi, içine düşülen bu olumsuz durumda çıkış yolu olarak para politikasını arz yönlü bir yaklaşımla rekabetçi kur stratejisi üzerinden yürütmeye karar vermiştir. Bu çalışmada, tasarruf oranıyla ülke ekonomisini yıpratıcı bir döngüye sokan para politikasının temel hedefleme alanları olan, döviz kuru, enflasyon ve faiz arasındaki karşılıklı nedensellik ilişkisi, Toda-Yamamoto (1995) tarafından geliştirilen yöntemle açıklanmaya çalışılmaktadır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, rekabetçi kur stratejisinin, tasarruflar üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi bulunmamaktadır. Tersine tasarrufların rekabetçi kurun nedeni olabileceği yönünde bir bulguya ulaşmak mümkündür. Pek çok gelişmekte olan ülke gibi kronik sorunları olan Türkiye’de ekonomik gelişim için atılacak adımlar, yalnızca para politikasına bağlı değil politikalar bütünlüğünü sağlayacak olan planlama perspektifinden olmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Rekabetçi Kur
• Tasarruflar
• Toda-Yamamoto Nedensellik Analizi
• Planlama

Kaynakça

1. Aizenman, J., Cheung, Y.-W. and Ito, H. (2019), The Interest Rate Effect on Private Saving: Alternative Perspectives, Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy, 10(01), 1–37. doi: 10.1142/S1793993319500029
2. Akaike, H. (1974), A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
3. Akyüz, Y. (2008) Managing Financial Instability in Emerging Markets: A Keynesian Perspective. Turkish Economic Association Discussion Papers. Link: https://www.tek.org.tr/pdf/879_10122022_190724.pdf.
4. Akyüz, Y. (2018), Inequality, financialisation and stagnation, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 29(4), 428–445.
5. Amiri, A. and Ventelou, B. (2012), Granger causality between total expenditure on health and GDP in OECD: Evidence from the Toda–Yamamoto approach, Economics Letters, 116(3), 541–544. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.040.
6. Balmumcu, Ö. and Süslü, B. (2015), Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Tasarruf açığı and Para Politikası, International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 11(25), 1–16. doi: 10.17130/ijmeb.2015.11.25.916.
7. Bilson, J. F. O. (1979), The ‘Vicious Circle’ Hypothesis. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 26(1), 1–37. doi: 10.2307/3866563.
8. BloombergHT (2020), Albayrak: 2021’de yüzde 5’in oldukça üzerinde bir büyüme yakalayacağız. (October 6, 2022). Link: https://www.bloomberght.com/albayrak-turkiye-rekabetci-kuru-2263949.

9. Bond, M. E. (1980), Exchange Rates, Inflation, and Vicious Circles. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 27(4), 679–711. doi: 10.2307/3866954.
10. Boratav, K. (2015), Türkiye İktisat Tarihi, 21st ed., İmge Kitabevi: Ankara.
11. Breusch, T. S. and Pagan, A. R. (1980), The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics, The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), doi: 10.2307/2297111.
12. De Brunhoff, S. and Foley, D. K. (2006), Karl Marx’s theory of money and credit, in A handbook of alternative monetary economics, Ed: Arestis, P. and Sawyer, Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, 188–204.
13. Bulut, E. and Karakaya, A. (2018), Tasarruflar and Makroekonomik Değişkenler Arasındaki Uzun Dönem İlişki: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği, Uluslararası İktisadi and İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, Harun Terzi special issue, 207-226.
14. Çalışkan, Ş., Karabacak, M. and Meçik, O. (2017), Türkiye Ekonomisinde Eğitim Harcamaları and Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto Nedensellik Testi Yaklaşımı, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (KOSBED), (33), 45–56.
15. Ceylan, S. (2018), Enflasyon-Özel Tasarruf İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği, Anadolu İktisat and İşletme Dergisi, 2(1), 56–66.
16. Doornik, J. A. and Hansen, H. (2008), An omnibus test for univariate and multivariate normality, Oxford bulletin of economics and statistics, 70, 927–939.
17. Dritsaki, C. (2017), Toda-Yamamoto causality test between inflation and nominal interest rates: evidence from three countries of Europe, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(6), 120-129.
18. Escanciano, J. C. and Lobato, I. N. (2009), An automatic Portmanteau test for serial correlation, Journal of Econometrics, 151(2), 140–149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.03.001.
19. Fine, B. and Dimakou, O. (2016). Macroeconomics a Critical Companion. Pluto Press: London.
20. Foley, D. K., Michl, T. R. and Tavani, D. (2019). Growth and Distribution, 2nd ed, Harvard University Press: Massachussets.
21. Gürses, U. (2022), Bakan Nebati: “Politika faizini önemsizleştirdik”, Ekonominin Not Defteri. (June 6, 2022). Link: https://t24.com.tr/yazarlar/ugur-gurses/bakan-nebati-politika-faizini-onemsizlestirdik,33942
22. Itoh, M. and Lapavitsas, C. (1998), Political economy of money and finance, Springer: New York.
23. Jones, R., Kierzkowski, H. and Arndt, S. W. (2001), A Framework for Fragmentation, in Fragmentation: new production patterns in the world economy, Ed. H. Kierzkowski, S. W. Arndt, Oxford University Press: New York, 17–34.
24. Kazgan, G. (2000), İktisadi Düşünce veya Politik İktisadın Evrimi, 9th ed, Remzi Kitabevi: İstanbul.
25. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Macmillan: London.
26. Kierzkowski, H. and Chen, L. (2010), Outsourcing and Trade Imbaances: The United States-China Case, Pacific Economic Review, 15(1), 56–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0106.2009.00490. x.
27. Kouassi, E., Mougoue, M. and Kymn, K. O. (2004), Causality tests of the relationship between the twin deficits, Empirical Economics, 29(3), 503–525.
28. Maravall, A. (2006), An application of the TRAMO-SEATS automatic procedure; direct versus indirect adjustment, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50(9), 2167–2190. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2005.07.006.
29. McCombie, J. S., and Thirlwall, A. P. (2001), Growth in an International Context: a Post Keynesian View, in Foundations of International Economics, Ed. Deprez, J. And Harvey J. T., Routledge: New York, 45-100.
30. Nelson, C. R. and Plosser, C. R. (1982), Trends and random walks in macroeconmic time series: some evidence and implications, Journal of monetary economics, 10(2), 139–162.
31. Nurkse, R. (1952), Some International Aspects of the Problem of Economic Development, The American Economic Review, 42(2), 571–583. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1910629.
32. Phillips, P. C. B. and Perron, P. (1988), Testing for a unit root in time series regression, Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346.
33. Rambaldi, A. and Doran, H. (1996), Testing for Granger Non-causality in Cointegrated Systems Made Easy. Working Papers in Econometrics and Applied Statistics no. 88, University of New England Department of Econometrics. Link: https://www.aliciarambaldi.net/doc/wp88.pdf.
34. Rodrik, D. (2008), The real exchange rate and economic growth. Brookings papers on economic activity, 2008(2), 365-412.
35. Rostow, W. W. (1960), The Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge University Press: New York.
36. Somel, C. (2014), Makroiktisada Giriş, Yordam Kitap: İstanbul.
37. Thirlwall, A. P. (1979), The BoPs constraints as an explanation of international growth rate differences, PSL Quarterly Review, 45–53.
38. Thirlwall, A. P. and Hussain, N. H. (1982), The Balance of Payments Constraint, Capital Flows and Growth Rate Differences between Developing Countries, Oxford Economic Papers, 34(3), 498–510.
39. Toda, H. Y. and Yamamoto, T. (1995), Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes, Journal of econometrics, 66(1–2), 225–250.
40. Türkay, H. (2013), Türkiye’de cari açık, bütçe açığı and yatırım-tasarruf açığı ilişkisi, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi and İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(2), 253–269.
41. White, H. (1980), A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity, Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 817–838.
42. Yeldan, E. (2009). Economics of Growth and Distribution. Eflatun Publishing House: Ankara.
43. Yeşilyurt, E. F. (2022), Bakan Nebati “Ekonomik Dönüşüm and Yeni Paradigmalar Zirvesi”nde konuştu. (October 6, 2022).Link: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/ekonomi/bakan-nebati-ekonomik-donusum-ve-yeni-paradigmalar-zirvesi-nde-konustu/2699076.