Romer Hipotezi’nin Geçerliliği: Yeni Kırılgan Beşli Ülkeler Örneği

Öz

Enflasyon, para politikası yapıcıları açısından önemli sorun alanlarından biri olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Enflasyondaki artış, ekonomik belirsizliği yükselterek iktisadi büyümeyi olumsuz yönde etkileyebilmektedir. Bu nedenle politika yapıcıların temel hedeflerinden biri, düşük ve istikrarlı enflasyon ortamında sürdürülebilir ekonomik büyümeyi sağlamaktır. 1980’li yıllarla birlikte ivme kazanan küreselleşme süreci, ülke ekonomilerinde dış faktörlerin rolünü artırırken iç faktörlerin ise göreli olarak önemini azaltmıştır. Küreselleşmenin önemli sonuçlarından biri olan ticari açıklık, ülkelerin makroekonomik göstergeleri üzerinde belirleyici etkilere sahiptir. Bu bağlamda, enflasyon ile ticari açıklık arasındaki ilişki literatürde sıklıkla ele alınan konular arasında yer almaktadır. Söz konusu ilişkiyi açıklayan yaklaşımlardan biri Romer Hipotezi (RH) olup bu hipotez ticari açıklıktaki artışın enflasyonu düşürücü bir etkiye yol açacağını ileri sürmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, ekonomik kırılganlıklara sahip Türkiye, Arjantin, Katar, Mısır ve Pakistan’dan oluşan “Yeni Kırılgan Beşli” ülkeler için 1994-2022 döneminde RH’nin geçerliliğini test etmektir. Bu doğrultuda uygulanan Durbin-Hausman ve Panel ECM eşbütünleşme testlerinden elde edilen bulgular, ticari açıklık ile enflasyon arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmadığını göstermektedir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, incelenen dönem itibarıyla Yeni Kırılgan Beşli ülkelerde RH’nin geçerli olmadığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Enflasyon
• Ticari açıklık
• Romer hipotezi
• Yeni kırılgan beşli ülkeler

Validity of the Romer Hypothesis: The Case of the New Fragile Five Countries

Öz

Inflation stands out as one of the important problem areas for monetary policymakers. An increase in inflation can adversely impact economic growth by increasing economic uncertainty. Hence, one of the main goals of policymakers is to ensure sustainable economic growth in a low and stable inflation environment. The process of globalization, which has accelerated since the 1980s, has increased the role of external factors in national economies while relatively reducing the importance of internal factors. Trade openness, which is one of the significant consequences of globalization, has determinant effects on countries’ macroeconomic indicators. In this respect, the relationship between inflation and trade openness is among the subjects frequently addressed in the literature. The Romer Hypothesis (RH) is one of the approaches explaining the aforesaid relationship, and this hypothesis suggests that an increase in trade openness will lead to a deflationary effect. The purpose of the current study is to test the validity of the RH for the "New Fragile Five" countries, consisting of Türkiye, Argentina, Qatar, Egypt, and Pakistan, which have economic vulnerabilities, during the period between 1994 and 2022. The findings obtained from the Durbin-Hausman and panel ECM cointegration tests showed that there was no statistically significant relationship between trade openness and inflation. The results revealed that the RH was not valid in the New Fragile Five countries during the studied period.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Inflation
• Trade openness
• Romer hypothesis
• New fragile five

Kaynakça

1. Afzal, M., Malik, M. E., Butt, A. R., ve Fatima, K. (2013). Openness, inflation and growth relationships in Pakistan: An application of ARDL bounds testing approach. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 51(1), 13-53.
2. Altwijry, O., ve Tahir, M. (2025). The relationship between trade openness and the inflation rate in Saudi Arabia: A cointegration approach. Economies, 13(8), 216.
3. Ashra, S. (2002). Inflation and openness: A study of selected developing economies (Working Paper No. 84). Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER).
4. Atabay, R. (2016). The relationship between trade openness and inflation in Turkey. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 5(3), 137-145.
5. Atgür, M. (2021). Türkiye'de ticari açıklık ve enflasyon ilişkisi: Romer hipotezi Türkiye'de geçerli midir? Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 30(1), 45-57.
6. Babatunde, M. A. (2017). Trade openness and inflation in Nigeria: A nonlinear ARDL analysis. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 8(24), 129-148.
7. Bai, J., ve Ng, S. (2002). Determining the number of factors in approximate factor models. Econometrica, 70(1), 191-221.
8. Bai, J., ve Ng, S. (2004). A PANIC attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica, 72, 1127-1177.

9. Bai, J., ve Ng, S. (2010). Panel unit root tests with cross-section dependence: A further investigation. Econometric Theory, 26(4), 1088-1114.
10. Bošnjak, M., Novak, I., ve Bašić, M. (2022). Openness and inflation nexus: The case of European post-transition countries. In Proceedings of the FEB Zagreb 13th International Odyssey Conference on Economics and Business.
11. Breusch, T., ve Pagan, A. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
12. Çelik, H., Alev, N., ve Erdemli, M. (2024). Is the Romer hypothesis valid for Newly Industrialized Countries? Evidence from panel ARDL. Economic Journal of Emerging Markets, 124-135.
13. Ceyhan, T., Gülcan, N., ve Gürsoy, S. (2023). Analysis of the relationship between trade openness and inflation: Evidence from MIKTA countries. Journal of Economics Business and Political Researches, 8(21), 327-338.
14. Chhabra, M., ve Alam, Q. (2020). An empirical study of trade openness and inflation in India. Decision, 47(1), 79-90.
15. Çoban, M. N. (2020). Romer hipotezi kapsamında ticari dışa açıklık ve enflasyon ilişkisi: Next 11 ülkeleri için panel ARDL analizi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, 11(3), 651-660.
16. Güneş, Ş., ve Konur, F. (2013). Türkiye ekonomisinde dışa açıklık ve enflasyon ilişkisi üzerine ampirik bir analiz. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 8(1), 7-20.
17. Hadri, K., ve Kurozumi, E. (2012). A simple panel stationarity test in the presence of serial correlation and a common factor. Economics Letters, 115, 31-34.
18. Haq, I. U., Alotaish, M. S. M., Kumara, N. G. S., ve Otamurodov, S. (2014). Revisiting the Romer's hypothesis: Time series evidence from small open economy. Pakistan Journal of Applied Economics, 24(1-2), 1-14.
19. Kamacı, A. (2019). Yeni Kırılgan Beşli ülkelerinde gelir eşitsizliğinin ekonomik büyümeye etkileri. Fiscaoeconomia, 3(3), 58-71.
20. Kaukab, M. E., ve Anggara, A. A. (2024). Does trade openness and inflation rate have dynamic interconnected patterns? An autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model co-integration approach. Journal of Economics, Finance and Management, 3(1), 181-193.
21. Kızılgöl, Ö. A., ve İpek, E. (2015). Türkiye’de enflasyon ile ticaret açıklığı arasındaki ilişki. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(4), 43-54.
22. Lane, P. R. (1997). Inflation in open economies. Journal of International Economics, 42, 327-347.
23. Lin, F., Mei, D., Wang, H., ve Yao, X. (2017). Romer was right on openness and inflation: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Applied Economics, 20(1), 121-140.
24. Mahmoudzadeh, M., ve Shadabi, L. (2012). Inflation and trade freedom: An empirical analysis. World Applied Sciences Journal, 18(2), 286-291.
25. Mukhtar, T. (2012). Does trade openness reduce inflation? Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development, 33(2), 33-52.
26. Munir, S., Hasan, H., ve Muhammad, M. (2015). The effect of trade openness on inflation: Panel data estimates from selected Asian economies (1976-2010). Southeast Asian Journal of Economics, 3(2), 23-42.
27. Munir, S., ve Kiani, A. K. (2011). Relationship between trade openness and inflation: Empirical evidence from Pakistan (1976-2010). The Pakistan Development Review, 853-876.
28. Nasrat, M. N. (2020). The impact of trade openness on inflation: Evidence from six South Asian countries (1980-2016). Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 7(4), 165-178.
29. Nazlioglu, S., Payne, J. E., Lee, J., Rayos-Velazquez, M., ve Karul, C. (2021). Convergence in OPEC carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from new panel stationarity tests with factors and breaks. Economic Modelling, 100, 105498.
30. Pesaran, H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels (Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0435). University of Cambridge.
31. Pesaran, M. H., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93.
32. Rangkakulnuwat, P., ve Thurner, P. (2017). Trade openness and inflation: An empirical evidence of Thailand. In Proceedings of the 76th IRES International Conference.
33. Reese, S., ve Westerlund, J. (2016). PANICCA: Panic on cross-section averages. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31(6), 961-981.
34. Romer, D. (1993). Openness and inflation: Theory and evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(4), 869-903.
35. Sachsida, A., ve Mendonça, M. J. C. D. (2006). Inflation and trade openness revised: An analysis using panel data (Discussion Paper No. 162). Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA).
36. Sahu, P., ve Sharma, N. K. (2018). Impact of trade openness on inflation in India: An autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach. The Empirical Economics Letters, 17(1), 21-32.
37. Sakanko, M. A., ve Joseph, D. (2019). Trade openness and inflation: Empirical explanation of the nexus in Nigeria. Innovation Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 1(2), 1-9.
38. Salimifar, M., Razmi, M. J., ve Taghizadegan, Z. (2015). A survey of the effect of trade openness size on inflation rate in Iran using ARDL. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 22(3), 143-154.
39. Sepehrivand, A., ve Azizi, J. (2016). The effect of trade openness on inflation in D-8 member countries with an emphasis on Romer theory. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, 4(4), 162-167.
40. Sikdar, A., Kundu, N., ve Khan, Z. S. (2013). Trade openness and inflation: A test of Romer hypothesis for Bangladesh. The Journal of Comilla University, 2(1), 85-96.
41. Şimşek, D., ve Hepaktan, C. E. (2019). Ticari açıklık, istihdam ve enflasyon ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(4), 316-336.
42. Syed, S. A. S. (2012). Does greater economic openness grasp the elements of inflation surprise? New evidence using panel data techniques. International Economics, 130, 40-54.
43. Tahir, M., Ali, N. O., Naseem, I., ve Burki, U. (2023). Trade openness and inflation rate in China: Empirical evidence from time series data. Economies, 11(10), 240.
44. UNCTADstat. (2025). Data center. https://unctadstat.unctad.org
45. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748.
46. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23, 193-223.
47. Westerlund, J., ve Larsson, R. (2009). A note on the pooling of individual PANIC unit root tests. Econometric Theory, 25(6), 1851-1868.
48. World Bank. (2025). World development indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
49. Zakaria, M. (2010). Openness and inflation: Evidence from time series data. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 11(2), 313-322.
50. Zombe, C., Daka, L., Phiri, C., Kaonga, O., Chibwe, F., ve Seshamani, V. (2017). Investigating the causal relationship between inflation and trade openness using Toda-Yamamoto approach: Evidence from Zambia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8(6), 171-18.