Doğu Avrupa Geçiş Ekonomilerinde Rekabet ve Gelir Düzeyi İlişkisi

Yıl 2016, Sayı: 66, 120 - 146, 01.12.2016

Seymur Ağazade

Öz

Bu çalışmada rekabetin gelir düzeyi üzerindeki etkisi, Doğu Avrupa geçiş ekonomileri örneğinde panel veri yöntemleri yardımıyla araştırılmıştır. Çalışmada rekabet düzeyi göstergesi olarak Dünya Ekonomik Forumu tarafından yayınlanan ve piyasalarda rekabet düzeyi, piyasaya giriş engelleri, tüketici bilincine ilişkin on altı alt göstergenin ağırlıklı ortalaması şeklinde hesaplanan mal piyasaları etkinliği endeksi kullanılmıştır. Reel GSYH ve kişi başına düşen reel GSYH için oluşturulan modeller panel veri sabit etkiler yöntemine göre tahmin edilmiş olup araştırma dönemi 20062015 yıllarını kapsamaktadır.Piyasalarda rekabetin varlığının, etkinliği ve inovatif faaliyetleri teşvik ettiği ve bu nedenle de ekonomik büyüme açısından önemli bir işleve sahip olduğu yönünde güçlü teorik görüşler olmasına karşın özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerde ekonomik gelişim açısından stratejik ya da öncelikli sektörler olarak ifade edilen sektörleri destekleme yönünde yaygın bir uygulama mevcuttur. Aynı zamanda ulusal şampiyonlar olarak ifade edilen güçlü özel firmaların ya da markaların yoğun devlet desteği ile var edilmesine yönelik politik tercihlerle de sıklıkla karşılaşılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada elde edilen sonuçlar ise Doğu Avrupa geçiş ekonomilerinde rekabetin gelir düzeyi değişkenlerini pozitif yönde etkilediğini güçlü şekilde desteklemekte ve kalkınma ya da sanayileşmeye yönelik devlet teşviki uygulamalarında piyasalarda rekabetin korunması ve güçlendirilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rekabet, Gelir Düzeyi, Geçiş Ekonomileri, Panel Veri

Competition and Income Level In Eastern European Transition Economies

Öz

The present study investigates the effect of competition on income level in the example of Eastern European transition economies by using panel data methods. Good markets efficiency index calculated by World Economic Forum as weighted average of 16 subindicators such as competition level in domestic market, market entrance barriers, quality of demand condition was used in the role of competition level indicator. Econometric approach is based on panel data fixed effects estimation of real GDP and real GDP per capita models. The study period covers from 2006 to 2015. Although there are strong theoretical evidences that competition is promoting efficiency and innovative activities and so has an essential function in terms of economic growth, there is a common practice especially in developing countries to support sectors that are expressed as strategic or priority sectors for economic development. Furthermore, there are prevalent political priorities in creating strong private companies or brands, which expressed as national champions, with intense government support. Findings of this study strongly support that competition effects income level variables positively in Eastern European transition economise and confirm the necessity of protection and enforcement of competition in markets when development or industrial incentives are applied by governments

Anahtar Kelimeler

Competition, Income Level, Transition Economies, Panel Data

Kaynakça

• AGHION, P. ve P. HOWITT (1992), “A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction”, Econometrica, No: 60(2), s. 323-351.
• AGHION, P., C. HARRIS ve J. VICKERS (1997), “Competition and Growth with Step-by-step Innovation: An Example”, European Economic Review, No: 41(3-5), s. 771-782.
• AGHION, P., C. HARRIS, P. HOWITT ve J. VICKERS (2001), “Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation, The Review of Economic Studies, No: 68(3), s. 467-492.
• AĞAYEV, S. (2012), “Geçiş Ekonomilerinde Liberalleşmenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerinde Etkisi”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, No: 21(3), s. 309-322.
• AGAYEV S. ve N. YAMAK (2009) “Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu Ülkelerinde Ekonomik Büyümenin Belirleyicileri”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, No: 23(4), s. 179-204.
• AHN, S. (2002), Competition, Innovation and Productivity Growth: A Review of Theory and Evidence, OECD Economics Working Paper, No: 317.
• BABETSKII, I. ve N. F. CAMPOS (2007), Does Reform Work? An Econometric Examination of the Reform-Growth Puzzle, IZA Discussion Paper, No: 2638.
• BALTAGI, B. H. (2013), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 5th ed., John Wiley and Sons Ltd., UK.
• BALTAGI, B. H. ve P. X. WU (1999), “Unequally Spaced Panel Data Regressions With AR(1) Disturbances”, Econometric Theory, No: 15(6), s. 814-823.
• BASSANINI, A., S. SCARPETTA ve I. VISCO (2000), Knowledge, Technology and Economic Growth: Recent Evidence from OECD Countries, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 259.
• BHARGAVA, A., L. FRANZINI ve W. NARENDRANATHAN (1982), “Serial Correlation and the Fixed Effects Model”, The Review of Economic Studies, No: 49(4), s. 533-549.
• BUCCIROSSI, P., L. CIARI, T. DUSO, G. SPAGNOLO ve C. VITALE (2013), “Competition Policy and Productivity Growth: An Empirical Assessment”, Review of Economics and Statistics, No: 95(4), s. 1324-1336.
• CHIQUIAR, D. ve M. RAMOS-FRANCIA (2009), Competitiveness and Growth of The Mexican Economy, Working Papers, Banco de México, No: 2009-11.
• COLANDER, D. C. (1998), Microeconomics, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, USA.
• DE MELO, M., C. DENIZER ve A. GELB (1996), From Plan to Market: Patterns of Transition, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No: 1564.
• DE MELO, M., C. DENIZER, A. GELB ve S. TENEV (1997), Circumstance and Choice: The Role of Initial Conditions and Policies in Transition Economies, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No: 1866.
• DRISCOLL, J. C. ve A. C. KRAAY (1998), “Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation with Spatially Dependent Panel Data”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, No: 80(4), s. 549-560.
• DUTZ, A. M. ve A. HAYRI (2000), Does More Intense Competition Lead to Higher Growth, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No: 2320.
• DUTZ, A. M. ve M. VAGLIASINDI (2000), “Competition Policy Implementation in Transition Economies: An Empirical Assessment”, European Economic Review, No: 44(4-6), s. 762-772.
• DÜNYA BANKASI, Dünya Kalkınma Göstergeleri (World Development Indicators), http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world- development-indicators, Erişim Tarihi: 27.04.2017.
• DÜNYA EKONOMIK FORMU, The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017, https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness- report-2016-2017-1, Erişim Tarihi: 27.04.2017.
• DÜNYA EKONOMIK FORMU, The Global Competitiveness Report 2015- 2016, http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016 /, Erişim Tarihi: 27.04.2017.
• FALCETTI, E., T. LYSENKO ve P. SANFEY (2005), Reform and Growth Re- examining the Evidence, EBRD Working Paper, No: 90.
• GALI, J. (1994), “Monopolistic Competition, Endogenous Mark-ups, and Growth”, European Economic Review, No: 38(3-4), s. 748-756.
• HARBERGER, A. C. (1954), “Monopoly and Resource Allocation”, American Economic Review, No: 44(2), s. 77-87.
• HAUSMAN, J. (1978), “Specification Tests in Econometrics”, Econometrica, No: 46(6), s. 1251-1271.
• KARAKAYA, A., S. AĞAZADE ve S. PERÇIN (2015), Türk İmalat Sanayinde Performans, İnovasyon ve Rekabet Arasındaki İlişki, Uluslararası Avrasya Ekonomileri Konferansı, Kazan, RUSYA, s.699-708.
• LEIBENSTEIN, H. (1966), “Allocative Efficiency vs. “X-Efficiency””, The American Economic Review, No: 56(3), s. 392-415.
• LEVIN, A., C.-F. LIN ve C.-S. J. CHU (2002), “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-sample Properties”, Journal of Econometrics, No: 108(1), s. 1-24.
• NICOLETTI, G. ve S. SCARPETTA (2003), Regulation, Productivity and Growth: OECD Evidence, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No: 2944.
• ROGERS, M. (2004), “Competition, Agency and Productivity”, International Journal of the Economics of Business, No: 11(3), s. 349-367.
• PELIPAS, I. ve A. CHUBRIK (2008), Market Reforms and Growth in Post-socialist Economies: Evidence from Panel Cointegration and Equilibrium Correction Model, William Davidson Institute Working Paper, No: 936.
• PESARAN, M. H. (2004), General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels, Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, No: 0435.
• PESARAN, M. H. (2007), “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-section Dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, No: 22(2), s. 265-312.
• PETERSEN, N. (2013), “Antitrust Law and the Promotion of Democracy and Economic Growth”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, No: 9(3), s. 593-636.
• PRÓCHNIAK, M. (2017), “The Impact of Product Market Competition on GDP Per Capita Growth in The EU Countries: Does The Model of Capitalism Matter?”, Post-Communist Economies, DOI: 10.1080/14631377.2017.1362098.
• SACHS, J. D. (1996), “The Transition at Mid-Decade”, The American Economic Review, No: 86(2), s. 128-133.
• SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
• SCHWARTZMAN, D. (1960), “The Burden of Monopoly”, Journal of Political Economy, No: 68(6), s. 627-630.
• SELOWSKY, M. ve R. MARTIN (1997), “Policy Performance and Output Growth in the Transition Economies”, The American Economic Review, No: 87(2), s. 349-353.
• TATOĞLU, F. Y. (2012), Panel Veri Ekonometrisi, Beta Basım, İstanbul.
• TOLLISON, R. D. (2012), “The Economic Theory of Rent Seeking”, Public Choice, No: 152(1/2), s. 73-82.
• VOIGT, S. (2009), “The Effects of Competition Policy on Development – Cross- Country Evidence Using Four New Indicators”, The Journal of Development Studies, No: 45(8), s. 1225-1248.
• UNCTAD (1998), Empirical Evidence if the Benefits from Applying Competition Law and Policy Principles to Economic Development in Order to Attain Greater Efficiency in International Trade and Development, TD/B/COM.2/EM/10/ Rev.1, Geneva, SWITZERLAND.
• ZANETTI, F. (2009), “Effects of Product and Labor Market Regulation on Macroeconomic Outcomes”, Journal of Macroeconomics, 31, s. 320-332.