The nexus between education expenditures and agricultural value added in OECD countries: A panel data analysis

Öz

Purpose: This study investigates the causal relationships among public education expenditure (PEE), agricultural value added (AVA), and gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC) in OECD countries to reveal the role of human capital in sustainable economic growth.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The study employs the Panel ARDL model with the PMG estimator to examine short-run and long-run relationships among variables. The Emirmahmutoğlu and Köse (2011) panel causality test is used to identify the direction of causality. Cross-sectional dependence is assessed using LM and adjusted LM tests, while stationarity is examined through the CADF unit root test.

Findings: The results indicate bidirectional causality between PEE and AVA, and unidirectional causality from AVA to GDPPC. Panel ARDL-PMG estimates show that the short-run effects of PEE and GDPPC on AVA are not statistically significant. However, the negative and significant error-correction coefficient suggests that approximately 16.9% of disequilibria are corrected in each period. In the long run, both PEE and GDPPC exert positive and significant effects on AVA. A 1% increase in PEE and GDPPC increases AVA by 0.68% and 0.78%, respectively.

Research Limitations/Implications: The study is limited to 33 OECD countries over the period 2008–2021 and does not consider nonlinear or asymmetric relationships.

Originality/Value: The study provides cross-country evidence on the education-agriculture-growth nexus and enhances methodological robustness by accounting for heterogeneity and cross-sectional dependence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public education expenditure
• agricultural value added
• agricultural economics
• OECD countries
• panel data analysis

OECD ülkelerinde eğitim harcamaları ve tarımsal katma değer ilişkisi: Bir panel veri analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, OECD ülkelerinde kamu eğitim harcamaları (KEH), tarımsal katma değer (TKD) ve kişi başına düşen gayrisafi yurt içi hasıla (KBGSYH) arasındaki nedensellik ilişkilerini inceleyerek beşerî sermayenin sürdürülebilir ekonomik büyümedeki rolünü ortaya koymaktır.

Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Çalışmada, değişkenler arasındaki kısa ve uzun dönem ilişkileri analiz etmek amacıyla Panel ARDL modeli kapsamında PMG tahmincisi kullanılmıştır. Nedensellik yönünü belirlemek için Emirmahmutoğlu ve Köse (2011) panel nedensellik testi uygulanmıştır. Yatay kesit bağımlılığı LM ve düzeltilmiş LM testleriyle, durağanlık ise CADF birim kök testiyle incelenmiştir.

Bulgular: Sonuçlar, KEH ile TKD arasında çift yönlü, TKD’den KBGSYH’ye doğru ise tek yönlü nedensellik bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Panel ARDL-PMG bulgularına göre kısa dönemde KEH ve KBGSYH’nin TKD üzerindeki etkileri istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir. Ancak negatif ve anlamlı hata düzeltme katsayısı, kısa dönem dengesizliklerinin yaklaşık %16,9’unun her dönemde giderildiğini göstermektedir. Uzun dönemde ise KEH ve KBGSYH’nin TKD üzerinde pozitif ve anlamlı etkileri bulunmaktadır. KEH’deki %1’lik artış TKD’yi %0,68, KBGSYH’deki %1’lik artış ise %0,78 artırmaktadır.

Araştırma Sınırlamaları/Etkileri: Çalışma, 2008–2021 döneminde 33 OECD ülkesiyle sınırlı olup doğrusal olmayan ve asimetrik ilişkileri kapsamamaktadır.

Özgünlük/Değer: Çalışma, eğitim-tarım-büyüme ilişkisine yönelik çok ülkeli kanıt sunmakta ve heterojenlik ile yatay kesit bağımlılığını dikkate alan metodolojik açıdan güçlü bir yaklaşım kullanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamu eğitim harcamaları
• tarımsal katma değer
• tarım ekonomisi
• OECD ülkeleri
• panel veri analizi

Kaynakça

1. Ali, M. and Flinn, J.C. (1989), “Profit efficiency among basmati rice producers in Pakistan Punjab”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 303-310, https://doi.org/10.2307/1241587.
2. Arslan, H. (2025), Küçük üreticinin hayatta kalma stratejisi olarak “seracılık”: Bir durum çalışması. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 31(2), 257-270. https://doi.org/10.24181/tarekoder.1720552.
3. Asadullah, M.N. and Rahman, S. (2009), “Farm productivity and efficiency in rural Bangladesh: the role of education revisited”, Applied Economics, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 17-33, https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840601019125
4. Barro, R.J. (1990), “Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98 No. 5, pp. 103-125, https://doi.org/10.1086/261726.
5. Becker, G.S. (1975), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education (2nd ed.), Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
6. Binboğa, G., Tekün, O. B., Abay, C., ve Örmeci Kart, M. Ç. (2024), “Çiftçilerin Bilgi Teknolojisi Kullanımı: İzmir İli Örneği”. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, Vol. 30 No. 1, s. 17-25. https://doi.org/10.24181/tarekoder.1380528
7. Breusch, T.S. and Pagan, A.R. (1980), “The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification tests in econometrics”, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 239-253, https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111.
8. Denison, E.F. (1962), “The sources of economic growth in the United States and the alternatives before us”, Committee for Economic Development, No. 72, pp. 935-938, https://doi.org/10.2307/2228363

9. Dünya Bankası (2025), World Development Indicators (WDI), available at: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed 10 July 2025).
10. Dünya Bankası (2025a), World Development Indicators (WDI): Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added per worker (constant 2015 US$), available at: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed 10 July 2025).
11. Dünya Bankası (2025b), World Development Indicators (WDI): Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP), available at: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed 10 July 2025).
12. Dünya Bankası (2025c), World Development Indicators (WDI): GDP per capita (constant 2015 US$), available at: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed 10 July 2025).
13. Ejeta T. T. and Bai, X. (2025), “The effect of sustainable agricultural practices on crop productivity in Ethiopia: Insights from a meta-analysis”. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. pp. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1499412
14. Elmalı, K. (2025), Ekonomik kalkınmada tarım sektörünün etkisinin mekânsal ekonometrik analizi. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 31(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.24181/tarekoder.1567263.
15. Emirmahmutoğlu, F. and Köse, N. (2011), “Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels”, Economic Modelling, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 870-876, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.018.
16. Fan, S. and Zhang, X. (2008), “Public expenditure, growth and poverty reduction in rural Uganda”, African Development Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 466-496, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8268.2008.00194.x.
17. FAO. (2024), The state of food and agriculture 2024. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
18. Fuglie, K. (2015), “Accounting for growth in global agriculture”. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 201–234. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-17151
19. Gebeyehu, T. A. (2023), “Adoption and impacts of conservation agriculture on smallholder farmers’ livelihoods in the case of Arba Minch Zuria district of Southern Ethiopia”. Cogent Social Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 1. Pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2235782
20. Gollin, D., Lagakos, D., and Waugh, M. E. (2014), “The agricultural productivity gap”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 129 No 2, pp. 939-993. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt056
21. Hansson, P. and Henrekson, M. (1994), “A new framework for testing the effect of government spending on growth and productivity”, Public Choice, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 381-401, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053239.
22. Jamison, D.T. and Lau, L.J. (1982), Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD and London.
23. Kabiru, S.A. (2020), “The relationship between education and agricultural productivity: the moderating effect of NGO”, Universal Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 866-871, https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080317.
24. Kılıç, Y., ve Kıymaz, T. (2014), Tarımda eğitim ve işgücü verimliliği ilişkisi: Bölgesel farklılıklar. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 20(1 ve 2), 53-64. https://izlik.org/JA57EP65MB.
25. Knight, J., Weir, S., and Woldehanna, T. (2003), “The role of education in facilitating risk-taking and innovation in agriculture”. Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380312331293567
26. Lockheed, M.E., Jamison, D.T. and Lau, L.J. (1980), “Farmer education and farm efficiency: a survey”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-76, https://doi.org/10.1086/451231
27. Lucas, R.E. (1988), “On the mechanics of economic development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 3-42, https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7
28. Ninh, L.K. (2021), “Economic role of education in agriculture: evidence from rural Vietnam”, Journal of Economics and Development, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 47-58, https://doi.org/10.1108/JED-05-2020-0052.
29. Nurdoğan, A.K. and Bayar Türkoğlu, H.T. (2023), “Beşerî sermaye yatırımları ile iş gücü verimliliği ilişkisinin vektör otoregresyon modeli ile incelenmesi”, Verimlilik Dergisi, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 425-438, https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1231081.
30. OECD. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en
31. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. P. (1999), Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American statistical Association, Vol. 94 No.446, pp.621-634.
32. Pesaran, M.H. (2004), General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels (Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. CWPE 0435), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113.
33. Pesaran, M.H. (2007), “A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 265-312, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
34. Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A. and Yamagata, T. (2008), “A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence”, The Econometrics Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 105-127, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x.
35. Reimers, M. and Klasen, S. (2013), “Revisiting the role of education for agricultural productivity”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 131-152, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas118
36. Schultz, T. W. (1961), “Investment in human capital”. The American Economic Review, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 1-17.
37. Schultz, T.W. (1963), The Economic Value of Education, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
38. Toda, H.Y. and Yamamoto, T. (1995), “Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 66 No. 1-2, pp. 225-250, https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8.
39. UNESCO (2016), SDG4—Education 2030 Framework for Action, Incheon Declaration, World Education Forum, Incheon, Republic of Korea, available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ (accessed 1 July 2026).
40. Wang, H., Mao, Y., Zhou, M., and Li, X. (2025), “Farmers’ digital literacy and its impact on agricultural green total factor productivity: Evidence from China”, Sustainability, Vol 17 No 20, pp. 1-26.
41. Young, D. and Deng, H. (1999), “The effects of education in early-stage agriculture: some evidence from China”, Applied Economics, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 1315-1323, https://doi.org/10.1080/000368499323193.
42. Zachariou, M., Adenuga, A. H. and Jack, C. (2025), “Education and farmers’ environmental performance: A systematic Literature Review”. Sustainability, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020796