Analysis of the Causality Relationship between Agriculture, Industry and Service Sectors in Turkey

Yıl 2021, , 317 - 336, 31.10.2021

Nilcan Mert , Zehra Abdioğlu

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2021.04.15

Cited By: 1

Öz

This study aims to investigate the causal relationship between agriculture, industry, and service sectors for Turkey. For this purpose, the panel causality analysis developed by Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) was performed for Turkey's general and seven geographical regions, using panel data covering 81 provinces from 2004 to 2017. Within the framework of this analysis, the key sectors that drive economic growth were examined for seven regions. According to the findings obtained from the panel causality test, the agriculture sector is fed by industry and service sectors, and the key sectors those direct general economic growth are different by region.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Economic Growth, Sectoral Growth, Dumitrescu-Hurlin Causality Analysis

Türkiye’de Tarım, Sanayi ve Hizmet Sektörleri Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisinin Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türkiye için tarım, sanayi ve hizmet sektörleri arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisinin araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda 2004-2017 dönemi ile 81 ili kapsayan panel verileri kullanılarak Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) tarafından geliştirilen panel nedensellik analizi hem Türkiye geneli hem de yedi coğrafik bölge için gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analizler çerçevesinde bölgelere göre ekonomik büyümeye yön veren kilit sektörler belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Panel nedensellik testinden edinilen bulgulara göre tarım sektörü sanayi ve hizmet sektörlerinden beslenmektedir ve genel ekonomik büyümeye yön veren öncü sektörler bölgelere göre farklılık arz etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ekonomik Büyüme, Sektörel Büyüme, Dumitrescu ve Hurlin Nedensellik Analizi

Kaynakça

• Ahmed, A. & H. Ahsan (2011), “Contribution of Services Sector in the Economy of Pakistan”, PIDE-Working Papers, 79, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad.
• Altan, Ş. & M. Atan & S. Tokpınar (2015), “Sektörel Etkinlik Ölçümü: Girdi Çıktı Tablosu ve Veri Zarflama Analizi ile Bir Uygulama”, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 214-234.
• Arısoy, İ. (2008), “Türkiye’de Sanayi Sektörü-İktisadi Büyüme İlişkisinin Kaldor Hipotezi Çerçevesinde Test Edilmesi”, Discussion Paper, 2008/1, Türkiye Ekonomisi.
• Atan, S. (2011), “Türkiye’deki Sektörel Bağlantı Yapısının Girdi Çıktı Yaklaşımı ile İncelenmesi: Yurtiçi Üretim ve İthal Ara Girdi Ayrıştırması”, Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 22(80), 59-78.
• Bhagwati, J.N. (1984), “Splintering and Disembodiment of Services and Developing Nation”, World Economy, 7, 133-143.
• Blades, D. & D.D. Johnson & W. Marczewski (1974), Service Activities in Developing Countries, OECD, Paris.
• Blunch, N.H. & D. Verner (2006), “Shared Sectoral Growth Versus the Dual Economy Model: Evidence from Cote d’lvoire, Ghana, and Zimbabwe”, African Development Review, 18(3), 283-308.
• Breusch, T. & A. Pagan (1980), “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Application to Model Specifications in Econometrics”, Review of Economic Studies, 47 (1), 239-253.
• Chenery, H.B. (1979), Structural Change and Development Policy, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Dasgupta, S. & A. Singh (2005), “Will Services be the New Engine of Indian Economic Growth?”, Development and Change, 36(6), 1035-58.
• Dumitrescu, E. & C. Hurlin (2012), “Testing for Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels”, Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
• Ersungur, Ş.M. & A. Kızıltan (2008), “Türkiye Ekonomisinde Sektörler arası Yapısal Bağınlaşma-Girdi Çıktı Yöntemiyle Bir Uygulama”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2), 17-31.
• Ersungur, Ş.M. & E.D. Ekinci & A. Takım (2011), “Türkiye Ekonomisinde İthalata Bağımlılıktaki Değişme: Girdi-Çıktı Yaklaşımıyla Bir Uygulama”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sempozyumu Özel Sayısı, 25, 1-11.
• Fei, J.C.H. & G. Ranis (1961), “A Theory of Economic Development”, American Economic Review, 51, 533-565.
• Foster McGregor, N. & J. Pöschl & R. Stehrer (2012), “Manufacturing Productivity: Effects of Service Sector Innovations and Institutions”, Working Paper, 89, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies.
• Fuchs, V. (1968), “The Service Economy”, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York.
• Gemmell, N. & T.A. Lloyd & M. Mathew (2000), “Agricultural Growth and Inter-Sectoral Linkages in a Developing Economy”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51, 353-370.
• Gemmell, N. (1982), “Economic Development and Structural Change, The Role of Service Sector”, Journal of Development Studies, 19, 37-66.
• Granger, C.W.J. (1969), “Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods”, Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438.
• Günçavdı, Ö. & S. Küçükçiftçi & A. Bayar (2013), “Economic Development and Structural Change: The Role of the Agriculture Sector in Turkey”, Middle East Development Journal, 5(2), 1-29.
• Hirschman, A.O. (1958), Strategy of Economic Development, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
• Hwa, E.C. (1989), “The Contribution of Agriculture to Economic Growth: Some Empirical Evidence”, içinde: J. Williamson & V.R. Panchamurchi (eds.), The Balance between Industry and Agriculture in Economic Development, Volume 2, Sector Proportion, New York: The World Bank.
• Kaldor, N. (1967), Strategic Factors in Economic Development, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca.
• Kalmaz, D. & N. Gi̇ri̇tli̇ (2018), “KKTC’de Ekonomik Büyüme ve Sektörel Gelişimin Büyümeye Etkileri”, Gazi Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 11, 199-220.
• Kanwar, S. (2000), “Does the Dog Wag the Tail or the Tail the Dog? Cointegration of Indian Agriculture with Non-agriculture”, Journal of Policy Modeling, 22 (5), 533-556.
• Katırcıoğlu, S. (2002), “Co-Integration and Causality between GDP, Agriculture, Industry and Services Growth in North Cyprus: Evidence from Time Series Data, 1977-2002”, Review of Social, Economic & Business Studies, 5(6), 173-187.
• Kolcu, F. & N. Yamak (2017), “Türkiye’de Kısa ve Uzun Dönem Sektörel Dinamikler”, Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(15), 81-99.
• Kularatne, T. & S. Sivarajasingham (2014), “Inter-Sectoral Dynamic Growth Linkages: Empirical Evidence form Sri Lanka”, Journal of Management, 10 (1), 25-33.
• Kuznets, S. (1973), “Modern Economic Growth: Findings and Reflections”, The American Economic Review, 63(3), 247-258.
• Lewis, W.A. (1954), “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor”, Manchester School, 22, 139-191.
• Nordas, H.K. & Y. Kim (2013), “The Role of Services for Competitiveness in Manufacturing”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, 148.
• Pehli̇vanoğlu, F. & M. İnce (2020), “Girdi-Çıktı Analizi Yaklaşımıyla Türkiye Ekonomisinde Sektörlerarası Bağınlaşmanın Uzun Dönemli Analizi”, Sosyoekonomi, 28(44), 169-190.
• Pesaran, M.H. & T. Yamagata (2008), “Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2004), “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, CESifo Working Paper, 1233, 255-60.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2007), “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross Section Dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, (22), 365-312.
• Rashid, A. (2004), “Sectoral Linkages; Identifying the Key Growth Stimulating Sector of the Pakistan Economy”, Working Paper, 27210, Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
• Sastry, D. vd. (2003), “Sectoral Linkages and Growth Prospects: Reflections on the Indian Economy”, Economic and Political Weekly, 38(24), 2390-2397.
• Subramaniam, V. & M. Reed (2009), “Agricultural Inter Sectoral Linkages and its Contribution to Economics Growth in the Transition Countries”, International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China, August 16-22.
• Swamy, P.A.V.B. (1970), “Efficient Inference in A Random Coefficient Regression Model”, Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323.
• Terzi, H. & S. Oltulular (2004), “Türkiye’de Sanayileşme ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensel İlişki”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5(2), 219-226.
• Thirlwall, A.P. (2006), Growth and Development with Special Reference to Developing Economies, 8th Edition: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Wells, H. & A.P. Thirlwall (2004), “Testing Kaldor’s Growth Laws across the Countries of Africa”, African Development Review, 15(2-3), 89-105.
• Yamak, N. (2000), “Cointegration, Causality and Kaldor’s hypothesis: Evidence from Turkey, 1946-1995”, Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 75-80.
• Yamak, R. & U. Sivri (1997), “Ekonomik Büyüme ve Kaldor Yasası: Türkiye Örneği, 1979-1994”, İktisat, İşletme ve Finans Dergisi, 12(139), 9-21.
• Yamak, R. vd. (2016), “A Re-examination of Kaldor’s Engine of Economic Growth Hypothesis for the Turkish Economy”, Acta Universitatis Danubius Œconomica), 12(4), 347-357.
• Yao, S. (2000), “How Important is Agriculture in China’s Economic Growth?”, Oxford Development Studies, 28(1), 33-49.
• Yetiz, F. & C. Özden (2017), “Analysis of Causal Relationship among GDP, Agricultural, Industrial and Services Sector Growth in Turkey”, Ömer Halis Demir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 75-84.
• Yıldız, N. & U. Akduğan (2014), “Girdi-Çıktı Tabloları ile Sektörler Arası İlişkilerin Analizi: Seçilmiş Ülke Örnekleri”, Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 44.