Deprem Riskinin Ekonomik ve Finansal Etkileri ile Afet Yönetimi Çıkarımları: Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı Ülkeleri Üzerine Ampirik Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı’na üye ülkelerde deprem riskinin ekonomik ve finansal göstergeler üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Afet yönetimi perspektifinden ele alınan çalışmada 2000-2024 dönemi incelenmiştir. Çalışmada deprem riskinin ekonomik büyüme, enflasyon, sermaye birikimi, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve para arzı üzerindeki nedensel ilişkileri analiz edilmektedir. Ekonometrik analizlerde yatay kesit bağımlılığı dikkate alınarak heterojen panel nedensellik testlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda panel SUR, panel VAR, panel LA-VAR ve PANICCA ile panel LA-VAR nedensellik testlerinden faydalanılmıştır. Ampirik bulgular, deprem riskinin iktisadi ve finansal kırılganlıkları artırarak ilgili ülkelerde afetlere karşı hazırlık düzeyi ve zarar azaltma kapasitesi üzerinde önemli etkiler oluşturduğunu belirtmektedir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, deprem riski özelinde afet ve risk yönetimi politikalarının ekonomik ve finansal göstergelerle bütünleşik olarak ele alınmasının gerekliliğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Deprem riski
• Sermaye birikimi
• Ekonomik büyüme
• Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar
• Panel nedensellik

Economic and Financial Impacts of Earthquake Risk and Implications for Disaster Management: An Empirical Analysis of the Member Countries of the Organization of Turkic States

Öz

This study investigates the effects of earthquake risk on economic and financial indicators in member countries of the Organization of Turkic States. Approached from a disaster management perspective, the study examines the period 2000-2024. The study analyzes the causal relationships between earthquake risk and economic growth, inflation, capital accumulation, foreign direct investment, and money supply. Econometric analyses utilize heterogeneous panel causality tests, considering cross-sectional dependence. Specifically, panel SUR, panel VAR, panel LA-VAR, and PANICCA causality tests were employed. The empirical findings indicate that earthquake risk increases economic and financial vulnerabilities, significantly impacting the level of preparedness and damage mitigation capacity in the affected countries. The results highlight the necessity of integrating disaster and risk management policies with economic and financial indicators, particularly in the context of earthquake risk.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Earthquake risk
• Capital accumulation
• Economic growth
• Foreign direct investments
• Panel causality

Kaynakça

1. Aksoy C.G., Chupilkin M., Koczan Z., Plekhanov A., 2024. Unearthing the economic and social consequences of earthquakes, Di,scussion Paper Series, IZA Institude of Labor Economics, IZA DP No. 17108, Erişim adresi: https://docs.iza.org/dp17108.pdf
2. Arezki R., Camara Y., Imam P., Kpodar K., 2025. The macroeconomic impact of earthquakes on growth: A tale from two datasets (No. 2025/232), International Monetary Fund.
3. Aydin S., Cin M., 2025. Evaluation of Disaster Volunteering Trainings Provided by Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Turk Deprem Arastirma Dergisi, 7(2), 201-210, https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1603327
4. Bai J., Ng S., 2004. A PANIC attack on unit roots and cointegration, Econometrica, 72(4), 1127-1177, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00528.x
5. Baltagi B.H., 2021. Econometric analysis of panel data (6th ed.), Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53953-5
6. Birvural A., 2025. Türkiye’de Cumhuriyet döneminde yaşanan depremlerin ekonomik etkileri ve çözüm önerileri, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 153-165, https://doi.org/10.47147/ksuiibf.1785845
7. Breusch T.S., Pagan A.R., 1980. The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics, Review of Econometric Studies, 47(1), 239-253, https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
8. Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, 2026. The WorldRiskReport (Worldmap of Risk 2025), Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, Erişim adresi: https://weltrisikobericht.de/worldriskreport/#worldmap

9. Cafri R., Akarsu G., Acci Y., 2025. The Impact of Disasters on Market Volatility: A GARCH-Based Analysis of Earthquake and COVID-19 Reflections on the Türkiye Stock Market, Turk Deprem Arastirma Dergisi 7(Special Issue-Economic and Administrative Analysis of February 6, 2023 Earthquakes), 9-17, https://doi.org/10.46464/tdad.1732117
10. Caporale G.M., Gil-Alana L.A., Muñoz L., 2025. Earthquakes and stock market performance: Evidence from Japan, CESifo Working Paper, No.11822, Erişim adresi: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/316936
11. Choi I., 2001. Unit root tests for panel data, Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6
12. CRED, 2025. 2024 Disasters in Numbers. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Erişim adresi: https://files.emdat.be/reports/2024_EMDAT_report.pdf
13. Dumitrescu E.I., Hurlin C., 2012. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels, Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
14. Dürrü Z., 2025. 6 Şubat Kahramanmaraş depremlerinin ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki dinamik etkileri: Deprem skoru temelli ARDL analizi, Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 60(4), 4378-4397, https://doi.org/10.63556/tisej.2025.1669
15. Eickmeier S., Quast J., Schüler Y., 2024. Macroeconomic and financial effects of natural disasters, Deutsche Bundesbank Discussion Paper, No.45/2024, Erişim adresi: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/311840
16. Emirmahmutoglu F., Kose N., 2011. Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels, Economic Modelling, 28(3), 870-876, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.018
17. Fisher R.A., 1992. Statistical methods for research workers. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Breakthroughs in statistics (pp. 66–70), Springe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_6
18. Granger C.W., 1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods, Econometrica, 37, 424-438, https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
19. Güneş A., Dinçer G., 2025. Depremlerin makroekonomik etkileri üzerine bir değerlendirme, Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 36(137), 419-457, https://doi.org/10.5455/ey.45002
20. IDMC, 2026. 2025 Global Report on Internal Displacement, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Erişim adresi: https://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2025/
21. IFHV, 2025. WorldRiskReport 2025, Berlin: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft. Institut für Friedenssicherungsrecht und Humanitäres Völkerrecht, Erişim adresi: https://www.ifhv.de/publications/world-risk-report
22. Karul Ç., Akyüz M., 2025. Trade openness and child mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa: Empirical evidence from a new panel causality test, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 72, 225-236, https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1762352
23. Kónya L., 2006. Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach, Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978-992, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2006.04.008
24. Maddala G.S., Wu S., 1999. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-652, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
25. Menyah K., Nazlioglu S., Wolde-Rufael Y., 2014. Financial development, trade openness and economic growth in African countries: New insights from a panel causality approach, Economic Modelling, 37, 386-394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.11.044
26. Munich Re, 2026. Natural disasters worldwide: Losses are on the rise as climate change strikes, Munich Re, Erişim adresi: https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters.html
27. Nakagawa M., Saito M., Yamaga H., 2007. Earthquake risk and housing rents: Evidence from the Tokyo metropolitan area, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 37(1), 87-99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2006.06.009
28. Naoi M., Seko M., Sumita K., 2009. Earthquake risk and housing prices in Japan: Evidence before and after massive earthquakes, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(6), 658-669, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2009.08.002
29. Nasır A., Alymany G., Brimo F., Tekin S., Drury J., 2025. Understanding the socio-economic and wellbeing impacts of the 2023 earthquakes in Turkey on Syrian refugees, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 125, 105548, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105548
30. Nazlıoğlu S., Karul C., 2024. Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous panels with cross-sectional dependence, Empirical Economics, 67(4), 1541-1579, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-024-02589-w
31. Noy I., 2009. The macroeconomic consequences of disasters, Journal of Development Economics, 88(2), 221-231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2008.02.005
32. Nur T., Topaloglu E.E., Yilmaz-Ozekenci S., Koycu E., 2025. The impact of energy intensity, renewable energy, and financial development on green growth in OECD countries: fresh evidence under environmental policy stringency, Energies, 18(7), 1790, https://doi.org/10.3390/en18071790
33. Paudel J., 2025. Economic impact of large earthquakes: Lessons from residential property values, Oxford Economic Papers, 77(2), 564-583, https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpae041
34. Pesaran M.H., 2006. Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure, Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
35. Pesaran M.H., 2021. General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels, Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13-50, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
36. Reese S., Westerlund J., 2016. Panicca: Panic on cross-section averages, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31(6), 961-981, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2487
37. Salisu A.A., 2019. United we stand, divided we fall: A PANICCA test evidence for stock exchanges in OECD, Finance Research Letters, 28, 343-347, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.06.003
38. Toda H.Y., Yamamoto T., 1995. Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes, Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250, https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8
39. Turkic Academy and OTS, 2025. Report on Turkic Economies 2024: Strengthening Transport and Energy Connectivity amog Turkic States, Turkic Academy and the Organization of Turkic States, Astana and Istanbul.
40. Türkcan B., 2024. Impacts of earthquakes on economic growth and income inequality in independent Turkic states, Academic Platform Journal of Natural Hazards and Disaster Management, 5(2), 58-75, https://doi.org/10.52114/apjhad.1515787
41. Umaraliev R., Moura R., Havenith H.-B., Almeida F., Nizamiev A.G., 2020. Disaster risk in central asia: Socio-economic vulnerability context and pilot-study of multi-risk assessment in a remote mountain area of the Kyrgyz Republic, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science, 5(3), 234-244.
42. Ülger Danacı Ö., Gökkaya E., Yavuz K., Demirbilek Ö., 2025. The macroeconomic effects of earthquakes in Turkey and sustainable economic resilience: A time series analysis, 1990-2023, Sustainability, 17(24), 11268, https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411268
43. World Bank, 2026. DataBank, World Development Indicators, Erişim adresi: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
44. Zajicek T.C., 2021. The seismic colony: earthquakes, empire and technology in Russian-ruled Turkestan, 1887-1911, Central Asian Survey, 41(2), 322-346, https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2021.1919056