LABOR PRODUCTIVITY, EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES IN TURKISH INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

Abstract

There are different theoretical approaches in economics related to the nature of relationship between wages, labor productivity and employment. Neoclassical theory predicts that, under competitive conditions, wages are tend to equalize to the value of marginal physical product of labor. However, efficient wage theories and performance based payment systems, taking into account different mechanisms of relationship between wages and labor productivity, lead to different conclusions. Similarly, there are different theoretical outcomes related to the relationship of employment-labor productivity and employment-wages. This study, using quarterly data for the period from Q1 2005 to Q3 2016, examines the relationship between wages, labor productivity and employment for Turkish industrial sector. The econometric approach is based on the Johansen and Juselius (1990) Cointegration Test and Causality Test Based on Granger Error Correction Model. The results show that the increase in employment in the long run affects labor productivity negatively and wage increases are positively affected.  This conclusion support the neoclassical principle that labor demand is determined by the labor cost and by the value of marginal physical product of labor. Short run conclusions of the study are based on the findings of Error Correction Model.

Keywords

• Employment,Wages and Labor Productivity,Johansen Cointegration,Error Correction Model.

TÜRKİYE SANAYİ SEKTÖRÜNDE EMEK VERİMLİLİĞİ, İSTİHDAM VE ÜCRETLER

Öz

İktisat teorisinde ücretler, emek verimliliği ve istihdam arasındaki ilişkinin doğasına yönelik farklı yaklaşımlar mevcuttur. Neoklasik yaklaşım rekabetçi koşullar altında ücretlerin emeğin marjinal fiziki ürün değerine eşit olduğunu öngörür. Fakat etkin ücret teorileri ve performans ölçekli ödeme yaklaşımı ücret ve emek verimliliği arasındaki ilişkiye yönelik farklı mekanizmaları dikkate alarak farklı sonuçlara ulaşır. Benzer şekilde, istihdam ile emek verimliliği ve ücretler arasında da farklı sonuçlar öngören görüşler vardır. Bu çalışmada 2005Q1-2016Q3 dönemi için Türkiye sanayi sektöründe emek verimliliği, istihdam ve ücretler arasındaki ilişki, Johansen ve Juselius (1990) Eşbütünleşme Testi ile Hata Düzeltme Modeline dayanan Granger Nedensellik Testi çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular uzun dönemde istihdam artışının emek verimliliğini negatif, ücret artışlarını ise pozitif yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Bu, neoklasik iktisadın emek talebinin emek maliyetleri ve emeğin marjinal fiziki ürün değeri tarafından belirlendiği ilkesini destekleyici niteliktedir. Kısa döneme ilişkin sonuçlar ise tahmin edilen Hata Düzeltme Modeli bulgularına dayanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İstihdam,Ücretler ve Emek Verimliliği,Johansen Eşbütünleşme,Hata Düzeltme Modeli.

Kaynakça

1. • AKERLOF, George A., (1970), “The Market for "Lemons" Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (3), 488-500.
2. • AKERLOF, George A., (1982), “Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97 (4), 543-569.
3. • BIESEBROECK, Johannes V., (2010), “Wages Equal Productivity. Factor Fiction? Evidence from Sub Saharan Africa”, World Development, 39 (8), 1333-1346.
4. • CHANG, Yongsung, Andreas HORNSTEIN ve Pierre-Daniel SARTE, (2009), “On the Employment Effects of Productivity Shocks: The Role of Inventories, Demand Elasticity and Sticky Prices”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 56 (3), 328-343.
5. • DICKEY, David A. ve Wayne A. FULLER, (1979), “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74 (366), 427-431.
6. • DICKEY, David A. ve Wayne A. FULLER, (1981), “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Econometrica, 49 (4), 1057-1072.
7. • GRANGER, Clive V. J., (1988), “Some Recent Development in a Concept of Causality”, Journal of Econometrics, 39 (1-2), 199-211.
8. • GRANGER, Clive V. J., Paul NEWBOLD, (1974), “Spurious Regressions in Econometrics”, Journal of Econometrics, 2 (2), 111-120.

9. • GUJARATI, Damodar N., Dawn PORTER, (2012), “Temel Ekonometri”, Beşinci Basımdan Çeviri, Literatür Yayınları, İstanbul.
10. • GÜNEŞ, Şahabettin, (2007), “İmalat Sektöründe Verimlilik ve Reel Ücret İlişkisi: Bir Koentegrasyon Analizi”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 14 (2), 275-287.
11. • HALL, Bronwyn, Francesca LOTTI ve Jacques MAIRESSE, (2008), “Employment, Innovation, and Productivity: Evidence from Italian Microdata”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 17 (4), 813-839.
12. • JOHANSEN, Soren, (1988), “Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12 (2-3), 231-254.
13. • JOHANSEN, Soren ve Katarina JUSELIUS, (1990), “Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration – With Applications to the Demand for Money”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52 (2), 169-210.
14. • KIM, Sangho, Hyunjoon LIM ve Donghyun PARK, (2010), “Productivity and Employment in a Developing Country: Some Evidence from Korea”, World Development, 38 (4), 514-522.
15. • MCFARLANE, Adian A., Anupam DAS ve Murshed CHOWDHURY, (2014), “Non-Linear Dynamics of Employment, Output and Real Wages in Canada Recent Time Series Evidence”, Journal of Economic Studies, 41 (4), 554-568.
16. • NIKULIN, Dagmara, (2015), “Relationship between Wages, Labour Productivity and Unemployment Rate in New EU Member Countries”, Journal of International Studies, 8 (1), 31-40.
17. • PAZARLIOĞLU, Vedat ve Emrah İ. ÇEVİK, (2007), “Verimlilik, Ücretler ve İşsizlik Oranları Arasındaki İlişkinin Analizi: Türkiye Örneği”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 14 (2), 1-18.
18. • PHILLIPS, Peter ve Pierre PERRON, (1988), “Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression”, Biometrika, 75 (2), 335-346.
19. • PONIKVAR, Nina ve Katya Z. KEJZAR, (2014), “The Puzzle on the Causality of the Productivity and Employment Growth: Evidence from Firm-Level Data”, Applied Economics, 46 (14), 1642-1651.
20. • RAZZAK, Weshah A., (2015), “Wage, Productivity and Unemployment: Microeconomics Theory and Macroeconomics Data”, Applied Economics, 47 (58), 6284-6300.
21. • SALOP, Steven C., (1979), “A Model of the Natural Rate of Unemployment”, American Economic Review, 69 (1), 117-125.
22. • SARAÇOĞLU, Bedriye ve Halit SUİÇMEZ, (2008), “Türkiye İmalat Sanayinde Büyüme, İstihdam ve Verimlilik Sorunları”, TİSK Akademi Dergisi, 3 (6), 88-128.
23. • SEPUTIENE, Janina, (2011), “The Estimation of the Relationship between Wages and Unemployment in the European Union”, International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 3 (2), 277-285.
24. • SHAPIRO, Carl ve Joseph E. STIGLITZ, (1984), “Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device”, The American Economic Review, 74 (3), 433-444.
25. • SIMS, Christopher, (1980), “Macroeconomics and Reality”, Econometrica, 48 (1), 1-48.
26. • STRAUSS, Jack ve Mark E. WOHAR, (2004), “The Link Age between Prices, Wages and Labor Productivity: A Panel Study of Manufacturing Industries”, Southern Economic Journal, 70 (4), 920-941.
27. • TADJOEDDIN, Mohammad Z., (2016), “Productivity, Wages and Employment: Evidence from the Indonesia's Manufacturing Sector”, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 21 (4), 489-512.
28. • WAKEFORD, Jeremy, (2004), “The Productivity-Wage Relationship in South Africa: An Empirical Investigation”, Development Southern Africa, 21 (1), 109-132.
29. • WEISS, Andrew, (1980), “Job Queues and Layoffs in Labor Markets with Flexible Wages”, Journal of Political Economy, 88 (3), 526-538.
30. • YUSOF, Selamah A., (2008), “The Long-Run and Dynamic Behaviors of Wages, Productivity and Employment in Malaysia”, Journal of Economic Studies, 35 (3), 249-262.
31. • ZHANG, Jun ve Xiaofeng LIU, (2013), “The Evolving Pattern of the Wage–Labor Productivity Nexus in China: Evidence from Manufacturing Firm-Level Data”, Economic Systems, 37 (3), 354-368.