Vol. 10 No. 4 (2022): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

The relationship between external debt and growth under the structural breaks in Turkey

PDF
  • Taner TAŞ,
  • Çetin Can EKMEKÇİLER
Taner TAŞ
Asst. Prof., Manisa Celal Bayar University, Faculty of Business, Department of Economics and Finance, Manisa, Turkey
Çetin Can EKMEKÇİLER
Graduate Student, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey

Published 2022-12-25

Keywords

  • Dış Borç, Ekonomik Büyüme, Yapısal Kırılma
  • External Debt, Economic Growth, Structural Break

How to Cite

The relationship between external debt and growth under the structural breaks in Turkey. (2022). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 10(4), 1441-1453. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v10i4.2118

Copyright (c) 2022 Taner TAŞ- Çetin Can EKMEKÇİLER

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

The relationship between external debt and growth under the structural breaks in Turkey. (2022). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 10(4), 1441-1453. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v10i4.2118

Abstract

This study aims to investigate whether Turkey's external debt (by considering the debt maturity and ownership separately) has a relationship with economic growth and to explain the direction and size of these effects in case of their existence. At the same time, the relationship between consumption and investment, which are sub-items of growth, and external debt are also discussed. The data subject to the analysis in the study consists of gross domestic product and external debt data provided by the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey Electronic Data Distribution System and covering the 1998Q1 and 2021Q4 periods. In this study, econometric methods, including both conventional and structural breaks, were used. According to the results, both short-term and long-term external debt significantly and positively affect gross domestic product, consumption and investment. In addition to this situation, it is seen that the effect of long-term external debts is more. However, it is also concluded that the effect of long-term external debt is greater. When evaluated separately on a sectoral basis, it is concluded that the significant and positive relationship between public sector external debt and economic growth and its sub-items is valid both in the short and long term. When the effect of external debt on investments is analyzed, it is seen that the effect of long-term external debt is more than short-term debt. The most important point to note here is that short-term private sector debt, which does not affect gross domestic product and consumption, has a significant effect on investment and is about three times the public sector short-term debt.

PDF

References

  1. Arslan, A. (2022). Türkiye’de İç Ve Dış Borçlanmanın Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkisi. Gaziantep University Journal Of Social Sciences, 21(1), 127-140.
  2. Benli, M. (2020). External Debt Burden–Economic Growth Nexus İn Turkey. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 9(1), 107-116.
  3. Biçer, B. (2020). Dış Borç-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: 1970-2017 Dönemi Türkiye Örneği. Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 23-45.
  4. Bilginoğlu, M., & Ahmet, A. Y. S. U. (2008). Dış Borçların Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (31), 1-23.
  5. Cadik, J. C. J. (2008). Publıc Debt In Lıght Of Barro-Rıcardo Hypothesıs: Empırıcal Analysıs. Romania, 25(15.8), 30-8.
  6. Çelik, S., & Başkonuş Direkci, T. (2013). Türkiye'de 2001 Krizi Öncesi Ve Sonrası Dönemler İçin Dış Borç Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi (1991-2010). Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(3).
  7. Çetinkaya, T. A. (2014). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Büyümenin Belirleyicileri 1975-2012. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek
  8. Çevik, N. K., & Cural, M. (2013). İç Borçlanma, Dış Borçlanma Ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasında Nedensellik İlişkisi: 1989-2012 Dönemi Türkiye Örneği. Maliye Dergisi, 165, 115-139.
  9. Çiçek, H., Gözegir, S., & Çevik, E. (2010). Bir maliye politikası aracı olarak borçlanma ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği (1990–2009). CÜ İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi.
  10. Diamond, P. A. (1965). National Debt İn A Neoclassical Growth Model. The American Economic Review, 55(5), 1126-1150.
  11. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1979) “Likelihood Ratio Statistics For Autoregressive Time Series With A Unit Root”. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.
  12. Doruk, Ö. T. (2018). Dış Borçlar Ve Ekonomik Büyüme: Türkiye Ekonomisinde 1970-2014 Dönemi İçin Ampirik Bir İnceleme (External Debt And Economic Growth: An Empirical Assessment Of The Turkish Economy For The Period Of 1970-2014). Maliye Dergisi, Temmuz-Aralık, 175, 96-114.
  13. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-İntegration And Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, And Testing. Econometrica: Journal Of The Econometric Society, 251-276.
  14. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 251-276.
  15. Göçer, İ., & Peker, O. (2014). Yabancı Doğrudan Yatırımların Cari İşlemler Dengesi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Türkiye, Çin ve Hindistan Örnekleminde Çoklu Yapısal Kırılmalı Eşbütünleşme Analizi. BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 8(1), 87-116.
  16. Gögül, P. K. (2016). Türkiye’de Mali Sürdürülebilirliğin Yapısal Değişimler Çerçevesinde Analizi 2002-2015. Siyaset, Ekonomi Ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 87-109.
  17. Görgün, M. R. (2020). Kalkınmanın Finansmanında Yabancı Sermaye Hareketleri ve Dış Borç Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, 11(2), 530-546.
  18. Granger, C. W. (1988). Some Recent Development İn A Concept Of Causality. Journal Of Econometrics, 39(1-2), 199-211.
  19. Gregory, Allan W. & Hansen Bruce E. (1996), “Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Models with Regime Shifts” Journal of Econometrics, vol:70, (1)
  20. Gujarati, N.D. (2005) “Temel Ekonometri”, Üçüncü Basımdan Çeviri", Çevirenler: Ümit Şenesen Ve Gülay Günlük Şenesen, Literatür Yayınları, İstanbul, Syf. 796
  21. Gürdal, T., & Yavuz, H. (2015). Türkiye’de Dış Borçlanma-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: 1990-2013 Dönemi. Maliye Dergisi, 168, 154-169.
  22. Hatemi-J (2008), “Tests for Cointegration with Two Unknown Regime Shifts with an Application to Financial Market Integration”, Empir Econ, 35
  23. Hendry, D. F., & Juselius, K. (2001). Explaining cointegration analysis: Part II. The Energy Journal, 75-120.
  24. Hotunluoğlu, H., & Yavuzer, M. T. (2020). Dış Borç Ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye (2000: Q1-2019: Q3). İnsan Ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(5), 3930-3950.
  25. Ağır, H. (2016). Türkiye’de Dış Borçlanma Ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisinin Nedensellik Analizleri. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16(32), 214-231.
  26. Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical Analysis Of Cointegration Vectors. Journal Of Economic Dynamics And Control, 12(2-3), 231-254.
  27. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with appucations to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 52(2), 169-210.
  28. Karagol, E. (2002). External Debt And Economic Growth Relationship Using The Simultaneous Equations. Metu VI. International Economics Research Conference, 11-14 September 2002, Ankara.
  29. Korkmaz, S. U. N. A. (2015). The Relationship Between External Debt And Economic Growth İn Turkey. In Proceedings Of The Second European Academic Research Conference On Global Business, Economics, Finance And Banking (Ear15swiss Conference) İsbn (Pp. 971-978).
  30. Kutlu, S., & Yurttagüler, İ. M. (2016). Türkiye’de Diş Borç Ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: 1998-2014 Dönemi İçin Bir Nedensellik Analizi. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 38(1), 229-248.
  31. Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2003). “Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test With Two Structural Breaks.” The Review Of Economics And Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
  32. Lumsdaine, R. & Papell, D. (1997) “Multiple trend breaks and the unit root hypothesis”. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 212-218.
  33. Maki, D. (2012), “Test For Cointegration Allowing For An Unknown Number Of Break”, Economic Modelling, Vol:29
  34. Narayan, P. K. & Smyth, R. (2007). "Mean reversion versus random walk in G7 stock prices evidence from multiple trend break unit root tests," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 152-166, April.
  35. Nissanke, M., & Ferrarini, B. (2001). Debt Dynamics And Contingency Financing. Helsinki (= Wıder Discussion Paper 2001/139).
  36. Önel, G., & Utkulu, U. (2006). Modeling the long-run sustainability of Turkish external debt with structural changes. Economic Modelling, 23(4), 669-682.
  37. Özkul, G., & Metin, A. (2021). Türkiye’de döviz kuru oynaklığı ile dış borç stoku arasındaki ilişkinin Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi ile analizi. Journal of Banking and Financial Research, 8(1), 46-63.
  38. Phillips, P. C., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99-125.
  39. Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing For A Unit Root İn Time Series Regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
  40. Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
  41. Sevüktekin, M. & Nargeleçekenler, M. (2010) “Zaman Serileri Analizi”, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara, 2010, S.49.
  42. Sims, C. A. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1-48.
  43. Toktaş, Y., Altiner, A., & Bozkurt, E. (2019). The Relationship Between Turkey’s Foreign Debt And Economic Growth: An Asymmetric Causality Analysis. Applied Economics, 51(26), 2807-2817.
  44. Tülümce, S. Y., & Yavuz, E. (2017). Türkiye’de Borçlanma Ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasindaki İlişki. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat Ve İşletme Dergisi, 13(13), 1034-1048.
  45. Umutlu, G., Alizadeh, N., & Erkılıç, A. Y. (2011). Maliye Politikası Araçlarından Borçlanma Ve Vergilerin Ekonomik Büyümeye Etkileri. Uludağ Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 30(1), 75-93.
  46. Uysal, D., Hüseyin, Özer., & Mucuk, M. (2009). Diş Borçlanma Ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği (1965-2007). Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(4), 161-178.
  47. Wojcik, P. (2011). Non-stationarity and its testing, cointegration testing and error correction model. University of Warsaw. Retrieved from 〈http://coin.wne.uw. edu.pl/pwojcik/macro_en.html〉.
  48. Yıldız, F. (2019). Türkiye Ekonomisinde Dış Borç, Ekonomik Büyüme Ve Cari İşlemler Dengesi İlişkisinin Analizi. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(4), 3416-3438.
  49. Zivot, E. & Andrews, D. (1992) “Further evidence of the great crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis.”Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 11, 251-270.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.