GENİŞ KARADENİZ BÖLGESİNDE ASKERİ HARCAMA VE ÜLKE KIRILGANLIĞI İLİŞKİSİ / The Relationship between Military Expenditure and State Fragility in Wider Black Sea Region

Yıl 2021, , 62 - 79, 30.04.2021

Bayram Güngör

https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.887420

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı 2006-2019 dönemi itibarıyla Geniş Karadeniz Bölgesi içinde yer alan ülkelerde askeri harcamalar ile ülke kırılganlığı arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Çalışmanın temel hipotezi askeri harcamalar ile ülke kırılganlığı arasında uzun dönemli nedensel bir ilişki olduğudur. Tahmin için panel analiz yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda Delta homojenlik testi, Breusch-Pagan yatay kesit bağımlılık testi, Pesaran CADF birim kök testi, Westerlund eş bütünleşme testi ve Dimutrescu-Hurlin nedensellik testi tercih edilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulgularına göre, askeri harcamalar ile ülke kırılganlıkları arasında uzun dönemde eş bütünleşme ilişkisi vardır. Ayrıca, askeri harcamalar ile ülke kırılganlıkları arasında karşılıklı nedensel bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Panel Eşbütünleşme, Askeri Harcama, Ülke Kırılganlığı, Yatay-Kesit Bağımlılığı

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MILITARY EXPENDITURE AND STATE FRAGILITY IN WIDER BLACK SEA REGION / Geniş Karadeniz Bölgesinde Askeri Harcama Ve Ülke Kırılganlığı İlişkisi

Öz

The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between military expenditures and state fragility in the countries within Wider Black Sea Region as of 2006-2019. The main hypothesis of the study is that there is a long-term causal relationship between military expenditure and state fragility. Panel analysis method was used to the estimation. In this context, Delta homogeneity test, Breusch-Pagan and Pesaran CD Cross-sectional dependency test, Pesaran CADF unit root test, Westerlund cointegration test, FMOLS and DOLS long-term parameter estimation tests and Dimutrescu-Hurlin causality test were have been preferred. According to the findings of the study, there is a positive long-term relationship between the military expenditures and state fragility. In other words, if there is a 1% increase in the state fragility, military expenditures increase by approximately 16%. Also, a reciprocal causal relationship was found between the variables. While there is a statistically significant causal relationship from military expenditures to the state fragility at 5% (0.0261), there is a statistically significant causal relationship from state fragility to the military expenditures at 5% (0.0120) as well.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Military Expenditure, Fragile States Index, Cross-Sectional Dependency, State Fragility, Homogeneity

Kaynakça

• Batır, K. (2017). Uluslararası Hukukta Devlet ve Başarısız Devletler: Somali Örneği. ÇOMU Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(4), 81-102.
• Bellos, S.K (2019), Military Expenditure, Economic Growth and Development in Transition Economies: A Panel VAR GMM Analysis. Applied Economics Quarterly, 65(3), 139-187.
• Bozoklu, Ş ve Yılancı, V. (2013). Finansal Gelişme ve İktisadi Büyüme Arasında Nedensellik İlişkisi: Gelişmekte Olan Ekonomiler için Analiz. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 161-187.
• Breusch, T.S. ve Pagan, A.R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Application to Model Specification Test in Econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253
• Chang, Y. (2004). Bootstrap Unit Root Tests in Panels with Cross Sectional Dependency. Journal of Econometrics, 120(2), 263-293.
• Dudzeviciute G, Paleckiene V ve Peledkis K. (2016). Overview of Defence Expenditure Trends: Evidence from the Baltic States, Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference Economic Science for Rural Development, Jeglova, LLU Esaf, 33-36
• Dumitrescu, E-I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Non-Causality İnheterogenous Panels. Economic Modelling, 29, 1450-1460.
• Fragile States Index (2020). https://fragilestatesindex.org/category/fragile-states-index-2020/ Harb, N. (2004). Money Demand Function: a Heterogenous Panel Application. Applied Economic Letters, 9, 551-555.
• Helman, G.B ve Ratner, S.R. (1993). Saving Failing States. Foreign Policy. 89, 3-20.
• Keskin, H.İ ve Aksoy, E. (2019). OECD ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Gelir Artışı ve İşgücüne Katılım Arasındaki İlişki: Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 54(1), 1-20.
• Odenhal, J. ve Neubauer J. (2020). Economic, Security and Political Determinants of Military Spending in NATO Countries. Defence and Peace Economics, 31(5), 517-53.
• Okafor, G. ve Piesse, J. (2018). Empirical Investigation into Determinants of Terrorism: Evidence from Fragile States. Defence and Peace Economics, 29(6), 697-711.
• Perez-Moreno, S. ve Angulo-Guerrero, M.J. (2016). Does Economic Freedom Increase Income Inequality: Evidence from the EU Countries. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 19(4), 327-347.
• Persyn, D. ve Westerlund, J. (2008). Error-Correction-Based Cointegration Tests for Panel Data. The Stata Journal, 8(2), 232-241.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 435.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2006). Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a MultifactorError Structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
• Pesaran, M.H. Ullah, A., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross Section Independence. Econometric Journal, 11(1), 105-122.
• Pesaran, M.H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
• Romer, P.M. (1989). Human Capital and Growth. NBER, Working Papers: 3173.
• Romer, P.M. (1990). Capital, Labour and Productivity. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, 1990, 337-367.
• Rostow, W.W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge University Press.
• Saba, C.S. ve Ngepah, N. (2019). A Cross Regional Analysis of Military Expenditure, State Fragility and Economic Growth in Africa. Quality & Quantity, 53, 2885-2915.
• Saba, C.S. ve Ngepah, N. (2020). Empirical Analysis of Military Expenditure and Industrialisation Nexus: A Regional Approach for Africa. International Economic Journal, 34(1), 58-84.
• Smyth, R. ve Narayan, P.K. (2009). A Panel Data Analysis of the Military Expenditure –External Debt Nexus: Evidence from Six Middle Eastern Countries. Journal of Peace Research, 46(2), 235-250.
• Su, C., Xu, Y., Chang, H.L., Lobont, D-R. ve Liu, Z. (2020). Dynamic Causalities between Defence Expenditure and Economic Growth in China: Evidence from Rolling Granger Causality Test. Defence and Peace Economics, 31(5), 565-582.
• Swamy, P.A.V.B. (1970). Efficient Inference in a Random Coefficient Regression Model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323.
• Tekeoğlu, E. (2018). Defence Expenditure and Economic Growth: Empirical Study on Case of Turkey, MBA Professional Report. Naval Postgradute School Monterey California.
• Westerlund, J. ve Edgerton, D.L. (2007). A Panel Bootstrap Cointegration Test. Economic Letters, 97, 185-190.
• Zaman, K. Shah, I.A. Khan, M.M. Ahmad, M. (2012). Cointegration Analysis of the Economic Growth, Military Expenditure and External Debt: Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Economics and Business Research, 18(1), 89-115.