Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021   IUP :10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021    Tam Metin (PDF)

AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test

Gökhan KonatMustafa GökçeFatma Kızılkaya

Yakınsama hipotezinin temeli Solow (1956)’a dayanmaktadır. Neo klasik büyüme teorisi yaklaşımları içerisinde yer alan bu hipoteze göre az gelişmiş ülkelerin gelirleri, bir süre sonra gelişmiş ülkelerin seviyesine ulaşacaktır. Az gelişmiş ülkelerin gelirlerinin, gelişmiş ülkelerin gelirlerine yakınsaması hipotezi literatürde sıklıkla sınanan bir hipotezdir. Günümüzdeki büyüme modellerinin çoğu doğrudan ya da dolaylı olarak Solow modelidir. Her ne kadar basit bir model olsa da, Solow modelinin birçok avantajı vardır. Ayrıca büyüme modellerinin çoğu doğrudan ya da dolaylı olarak Solow modeline dayanmaktadır. Literatürde sınanan birden fazla yakınsama türü vardır. Başlangıçta yakınsama yatay kesit regresyon analizine dayalı olarak test edilmiştir. Bu yöntemin eksiklikleri zaman serisi tekniğini temel alan analizlere yöneltmiştir. Yakınsama hipotezinin farklı türleri ekonometrik olarak sınanabilmektedir. Çalışmada AB üyesi ülkelerin 1960-2018 dönemini kapsayan yıllık gelir serilerinin yakınsaması incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmada yakınsama türlerinden biri olan stokastik yakınsama hipotezi SUR modellerine dayanan panel birim kök testleri ile sınanmıştır. Bu panel birim kök testleri yatay kesit bağımlılığını dikkate alan ve panelin her birimi için ayrı ayrı yorum yapılmasına imkân veren ikinci nesil panel birim kök testleridir. Bu çalışmada AB üyesi ülkelerin AB’nin grup ortalamasına yakınsadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yakınsamapanel birim kökSURADFSURKSS
JEL Classification : O47 , C33 , C49
DOI :10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021   IUP :10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021    Tam Metin (PDF)

Convergence of EU Countries: SURADF and SURKSS Unit Root Test

Gökhan KonatMustafa GökçeFatma Kızılkaya

The basis of the convergence hypothesis is based on Solow (1956). According to this hypothesis within the neo-classical growth theory approaches, the income of the less developed countries will reach the level of developed countries after a while. The hypothesis of convergence of incomes of underdeveloped countries to incomes of developed countries is a hypothesis frequently tested in the literature. Most of the current growth models are the Solow model, directly or indirectly. Although it is a simple model, the Solow model has many advantages. Moreover, most of the growth models are, directly or indirectly, based on the Solow model. In this study, the convergence of annual income series of the EU member countries, covering the period of 1960-2018, was examined. In this study, the stochastic convergence hypothesis, one of the convergence types, was tested with panel unit root tests based on SUR models. The SURADF and SURKSS panel unit root tests are second generation panel unit root tests. The SURADF and SURKSS panel unit root tests take into account the cross-sectional dependency, and allow for an explanation of each unit separately. In this study, it was concluded that EU member countries converged to the EU’s group average.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Convergencepanel unit rootSURADFSURKSS
JEL Classification : O47 , C33 , C49

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


As a result of the convergence hypothesis that the growth rates of developing and underdeveloped countries will be higher than those of developed countries, underdeveloped and developing countries will catch up with developed countries. In other words, the real gross domestic product of all countries will be equalized after a certain period of time. This idea is basically based on the law of decreasing yields. As a result of the capital increase of developed countries, which have reached the saturation point in terms of capital, the output increase rate is below the output increase rate as a result of the capital increase of underdeveloped and developing countries, which are insufficient in terms of capital. The basis of the convergence hypothesis is based on Solow (1956). Until Solow’s work, an acceptable theoretical explanation could not be given to this phenomenon, which was voiced by many theorists prior to Solow. The basis of the convergence hypothesis is based on Solow (1956). Moreover, most of the growth models are directly or indirectly based on the Solow model. There are multiple types of convergence tested in the literature. Earlier models did not distinguish between old and new technology, and looked at both old and new technology with one vision. The introduction of technological progress means that there is a difference in the efficiency of old and new technology. Thus, the model means that only physical capital accumulation cannot bring about growth per capita or increase the amount of production. In particular, given a microeconomic specification of technologies and preferences, the per capita output in an economy will approach the same level, regardless of initial capital (Timakova, 2011). When comparing different economies, it means that for economies with the same technologies and preferences, the difference in production per capita will be temporary.

The Solow growth model is the first to present convergence. It has deeply influenced the way economists conceptualize long-term relationships between macroeconomics. According to this hypothesis within the neo-classical growth theory approaches, the income of the less developed countries will reach the level of developed countries after a while. That is, the exact definition of convergence is to achieve the same fixed income level. Convergence hypothesis studies generally use external theory (Rivas ve Villarroya, 2017). Because the concept of convergence emerged, if different countries have the same preferences and technology, it can be said that the poorer countries tend to grow faster than the rich countries, especially in the presence of accumulated factors, particularly the decrease in marginal returns in capital use. Each country will reach its own stable state, but the differences in the per capita income will be reduced. When the rich and poor countries reach the same fixed income level, another possible solution can be seen. The hypothesis of convergence of incomes of underdeveloped countries to incomes of developed countries is a hypothesis frequently tested in the literature. Different types of convergence hypothesis can be tested in terms of econometrics. In this study, the convergence of annual income series of the EU member countries, covering the period of 1960-2018, was examined and the stochastic convergence hypothesis, one of the convergence types, was tested with panel unit root tests based on SUR models. The ADF and KSS panel unit root tests based on SUR models. The ADF and KSS panel unit root tests are second generation panel unit root tests. The ADF and KSS panel unit root tests take into account the cross-sectional dependency and allow for an explanation of each unit separately. In this study, using SURADF and SURKSS unit root tests, the convergence status of the EU member countries to the group average of the EU was examined, and results were given about whether the convergence hypothesis is valid for each country separately.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992). Convergence, Journal of Political Economy, 100, 223–251 google scholar
  • Baumol, W. J. (1986). Productivity growth, convergence and welfare: What the long-run data show? The American Economic Review, 76(5), 1072–1085. google scholar
  • Bernard, A. B., & Durlauf, S. N. (1996). Interpreting tests of the convergence hypothesis. Journal of Econometrics, 71, 161–173. google scholar
  • Brada, J. C., Kutan, A. M., & Zhou, S. (2003). Real and monetary convergence between the european union and transition-economy candidate countries: Market ıntegration and policy coordination. Forthcoming in Journal of Banking and Finance. google scholar
  • Breuer, J. B., Mcnown, R., & Wallace, M. S. (2001). Misleading Inferences from panel unit‐root tests with an illustration from purchasing power parity. Review of International Economics, 9(3), 482–493. google scholar
  • Breuer, J. B., Mcnown, R., & Wallace, M. (2002). Series‐specific unit root tests with panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64(5), 527–546. google scholar
  • Ceylan, R., & Abiyev, V. (2016). An examination of convergence hypothesis for EU-15 countries. International Review of Economics and Finance, 45, 96–105. google scholar
  • Chang, T., Lee, C. H., Chou, P., & Wang, S. C. (2012). Purchasing Power Parity for Transition Countries. Eastern European Economics, 50(4), 42–59. google scholar
  • Costantini, M., & Lupi, C. (2005). Stochastic convergence among European economies. Economics Bulletin, 3(38), 1−17. google scholar
  • Estrin, S., Urga, G., & Lazarova, S. (2001). Testing for ongoing convergence in transition economies: 1970 to 1998. Journal of Comparative Economics, 29(4), 677–691. google scholar
  • Gadea Rivas, M. D., & Sanz Villarroya, I. (2017). Testing the convergence hypothesis for OECD countries: A reappraisal. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 11(4), 1–22. Doi: 10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2017-4 google scholar
  • Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(7), 53–74. google scholar
  • Kocenda, E. (2001). Macroeconomic convergence in transition economies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 29(1), 1–23. google scholar
  • Kollias, C., & Messis, P. (2019). Are future enlargement candidate countries converging with the EU? Empirica, 1–21. Doi: 10.1007/s10663-019-09442-9 google scholar
  • Kutan, A. M., & Yigit, T. M. (2004). Nominal and real stochastic convergence within the transition economies: panel evidence. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32, 23–36. google scholar
  • Li, Q., & Papell, D. (1999). Convergence of international output time series evidence for 16 OECD countries. International Review of Economics & Finance, 8(3), 267–280. google scholar
  • Margaritis, D., Fare, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2007). Productivity, convergence and policy: A study of OECD countries and industries, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 28(1-2), 87–105. google scholar
  • Meng, M., Payne, J. E., & Lee, J. (2013). Convergence in per capita energy use among OECD countries. Energy Economics, 36, 536–545. google scholar
  • Mishra, A., & Mishra, V. (2018). Re-examination of convergence hypothesis among Indian states in panel stationarity testing framework with structural breaks, Applied Economics, 50(3), 268–286. google scholar
  • Reza, R., & Zahra, K. T. (2008). Evaluation of the income convergence hypothesis in ten new members of the European Union. A Panel Unit Root Approach. Panoeconomicus, 2, 157–166. google scholar
  • Rivas, M.-D. G., & Villarroya, I. S. (2017). Testing the convergence hypothesis for OECD Countries. A reappraisal. Economics, 11(4), 1–23. google scholar
  • Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The quarterly journal of economics, 70(1), 65–94. google scholar
  • Sonderman, D. (2012). Productivitiy in the euro area any evidence of convergence. European Central Bank, Working Paper Series, 1431, April. google scholar
  • Strazicich, M. C., Lee, J., & Day, E. (2004). Are incomes converging among OECD countries? Time series evidence with two structural breaks. Journal of Macroeconomics, 26(1), 131–145. google scholar
  • Timakova, M. V. (2011). Conditional convergence and the Solow model: An empirical study. Retrieved from Erasmus University Thesis Repository. http://thesis.eur.nl/ google scholar
  • Yılancı, V. (2012). Mean reversion in stock prices of G7 countries: Evidence from panel SURADF and panel SURKSS tests. Actual Problems of Economics, 5, 380. google scholar
  • Wu, J. L., & Lee, H. Y. (2009). A revisit to the non-linear mean reversion of real exchange rates: evidence from a series-specific non-linear panel unit-root test. Journal of Macroeconomics, 31(2009), 591–601. google scholar
  • Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 348–368. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Konat, G., Gökçe, M., & Kızılkaya, F. (2019). AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 0(31), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021


AMA

Konat G, Gökçe M, Kızılkaya F. AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics. 2019;0(31):63-75. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021


ABNT

Konat, G.; Gökçe, M.; Kızılkaya, F. AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 31, p. 63-75, 2019.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Konat, Gökhan, and Mustafa Gökçe and Fatma Kızılkaya. 2019. “AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0, no. 31: 63-75. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021


Chicago: Humanities Style

Konat, Gökhan, and Mustafa Gökçe and Fatma Kızılkaya. AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0, no. 31 (May. 2021): 63-75. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021


Harvard: Australian Style

Konat, G & Gökçe, M & Kızılkaya, F 2019, 'AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test', Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, vol. 0, no. 31, pp. 63-75, viewed 9 May. 2021, https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Konat, G. and Gökçe, M. and Kızılkaya, F. (2019) ‘AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test’, Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 0(31), pp. 63-75. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021 (9 May. 2021).


MLA

Konat, Gökhan, and Mustafa Gökçe and Fatma Kızılkaya. AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test.” Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, vol. 0, no. 31, 2019, pp. 63-75. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021


Vancouver

Konat G, Gökçe M, Kızılkaya F. AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics [Internet]. 9 May. 2021 [cited 9 May. 2021];0(31):63-75. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021 doi: 10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021


ISNAD

Konat, Gökhan - Gökçe, Mustafa - Kızılkaya, Fatma. AB Ülkelerinin Yakınsaması: Suradf ve Surkss Birim Kök Test”. Ekoist: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 0/31 (May. 2021): 63-75. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2019.31.0021



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim21.10.2019
Kabul19.11.2019

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.