Harberger-Laursen-Metzler Hipotezi: ARDL Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı ile Bir Analiz

Öz

Harberger, Laursen ve Metzler (HLM) hipotezi, ticaret hadlerindeki pozitif (negatif) bir değişikliğin, ceteris paribus, ticaret dengesinde pozitif (negatif) hareketlere yol açacağını savunmaktadır. Hipotez, gelişmekte olan ülkeler üzerinde test edildiğinde farklı sonuçlar ortaya koymaktadır. Bazı çalışmalar hipotezi doğrularken, diğerleri geçerli olmadığını öne sürmektedir. Ayrıca, uzun dönemli ilişkileri inceleyen nedensellik testleri de farklı sonuçlar göstermektedir. Türkiye, önemli ticaret açığı sorunları yaşayan ülkeler arasında yer almaktadır. Bu nedenle, hipotezin Türkiye bağlamında geçerliliğinin test edilmesi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmanın motivasyonu, 2013 ile 2023 yılları arasında Türkiye'de ticaret hadlerindeki değişimlerin uzun vadeli ticaret dengesi üzerindeki etkilerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda dış ticaret haddi hem miktar hem de birim değer olarak ele alınmıştır. Bulgulara göre, ticaret hadlerinden ticaret dengesine doğru pozitif bir ilişki vardır. Kısa vadeli sapmaların yaklaşık üç ay içinde düzeltildiği tespit edilmiştir. Nedensellik testi, ticaret hadlerinin ticaret dengesinin Granger nedeni olduğunu ve bu nedenselliğin tek yönlü olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada, belirtilen dönemler için Türkiye'nin ticaret hadleri ve ticaret dengesi verileri titizlikle analiz edilmiş ve HLM hipotezinin geçerliliği dikkatlice test edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, HLM hipotezini destekleyen güçlü kanıtlar sunmaktadır. Bu bulgular, Türkiye ekonomisi ve ticaret politikaları için önemli içgörüler sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası Ticaret
• Ticaret Hadleri
• Ticaret Dengesi
• Eşbütünleşme
• HLM Hipotezi

Harberger-Laursen-Metzler Hypothesis: An Analysis with ARDL Bounds Test Approach

Abstract

The Harberger, Laursen, and Metzler (HLM) hypothesis posits that a positive (negative) change in terms of trade, ceteris paribus, will lead to positive (negative) movements in the trade balance. When tested on developing countries, the hypothesis yields varying results. Some studies validate the hypothesis, while others suggest it is not applicable. Additionally, causality tests examining long-term relationships also produce different outcomes. Türkiye ranks among the countries with significant trade deficit issues. Therefore, testing the validity of the HLM hypothesis in the context of Türkiye is of great importance. The motivation of this study is to examine the impact of changes in terms of trade on the long-term trade balance in Türkiye from 2013 to 2023. In this context, both the volume and unit value of the terms of trade are considered. According to the findings, there is a positive relationship from terms of trade to the trade balance. Short-term deviations are found to be corrected within approximately three months. The causality test indicates that terms of trade are a Granger cause of the trade balance, and this causality is unidirectional. In this study, Türkiye's terms of trade and trade balance data for the specified periods were meticulously analyzed, and the validity of the HLM hypothesis was carefully tested. The analysis results provide strong evidence supporting the HLM hypothesis. These findings offer significant insights for Türkiye's economy and trade policies.

Keywords

• International Trade
• Terms of Trade
• Balance of Trade
• Co-Integration
• HLM Hypothesis

Kaynakça

1. Adler, G., Magud, N. E., & Werner, A. (2018). Terms-of-trade cycles and external adjustment. International Review of Economics & Finance, 54, 103-122.
2. Akbulut-Bekar, S. (2021). Türkiye’de Harberger-Laursen-Metzler yaklaşımının varlığı. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (26), 156-170.
3. Aquino, J. C., & Espino, F. (2013). Terms of trade and current account fluctuations: A vector autoregression approach. Central Reserve Bank of Peru Working Paper Series No, 8.
4. Ayad, H., & Belmokaddem, M. (2019). The effect of terms of trade on economic growth in Maghreb countries: Harberger-Laursen-Metzler effect for the period 1990-2017. el-Bahith Review, 19(1), 563-576.
5. Backus, D. K., Kehoe, P. J., & Kydland, F. E. (1994). VDynamics of the trade balance and the terms of trade: The J&Curve. V American Economic Review, 84(1), 84-103.
6. Deardorff, A. V. (2014). Terms of trade: glossary of international economics. World Scientific.
7. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 424-438.
8. Harberger, A. C. (1950). Currency depreciation, income, and the balance of trade. Journal of political Economy, 58(1), 47-60.

9. Hicham, A. (2019). The effect of terms of trade on current account balance: Harberger-Laursen-Metzler effect in Arabic countries. Journal of Smart Economic Growth, 4(1), 17-30.
10. İyibozkurt, M. E. (1975). Ödemeler bilançosu genel teorisi: Serbest piyasa, karma ekonomi ve planlı ekonomilerde. Akademi: Bursa İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akademisi Dergisi, 4(2-3), 23-50.
11. Keynes, J. M. (1936), The General theory of employment interest and money, London: Macmillan.
12. Khan, M. G. U., & Pradhan, M. A. H. (2022). How do the terms of trade influence economic growth? Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 14(3), 254-268.
13. Krugman, P., & Obstfeld, M. (2003). International economics theory and policy, Sixth Edition, Harper Collins College Publisher, New York.
14. Kouassi, E. (1997). Analyzing and simulating terms of trade shocks on ivorian macro-economic variables: An error corrected-var approach. Studies in Economics and Econometrics, 21(1), 91-108.
15. Laursen, S., & Metzler, L. A. (1950). Flexible exchange rates and the theory of employment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 32(4), 281-299.
16. Murshed, M. (2018). The Harberger-Laursen-Metzler effect and dutch disease problem: Evidence from South and Southeast Asia. Journal of Accounting, Finance and Economics, 8(1), 134-166.
17. Masson, P. R., Bayoumi, T., & Samiei, H. (1998). International evidence on the determinants of private saving. The World Bank Economic Review, 12(3), 483-501.
18. Mendoza, E. G. (1995). The terms of trade, the real exchange rate, and economic fluctuations. International Economic Review, 101-137.
19. McKinnon, R. (1989). The International gold standard 1879-1913. Unpublished paper, Stanford University (May).
20. Obstfeld, M. (1982). Aggregate spending and the terms of trade: Is there a Laursen-Metzler effect?. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(2), 251-270.
21. Okyay, U., & Unal, A. E. (2018). Is Harberger-Laursen-Metzler hypothesıs valid in Turkey?. Journal of Economics Finance and Accounting, 5(2), 152-159.
22. Otto, G. (2003). Terms of trade shocks and the balance of trade: There is a Harberger-Laursen-Metzler effect. Journal of International Money and Finance, 22(2), 155-184.
23. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
24. Shafiullah, M., Islam, F., & Navaratnam, R. (2020). The Harberger–Laursen–Metzler effect: Evidence from five SAARC countries. Empirical Economics, 58, 1749-1777.
25. Singh, T. (2023). Do terms of trade affect economic growth? Robust evidence from India. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, 31(2), 491-521.
26. Sims, C. A. (1972). Money, income, and causality. The American economic review, 62(4), 540-552.
27. Strojny, J. (2019). An assessment of Harberger-Laursen-Metzler effect in agribusiness sector in Poland. Annals of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 106(1), 36-50.
28. Tekgül, Y. B. (2017). Harberger-Laursen-Metzler etkisi: Türkiye ekonomisi üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 24(2), 649-663.
29. Trofimov, I. D., & Aris, N. M. (2024). Do exports enhance savings in the developing economies? An analysis of Maizels’ hypothesis. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 26(1), 156-185.