Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903   IUP :10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903    Tam Metin (PDF)

Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz

Nadide YiğiteliFahriye Öztürk

Çalışmada, 1990-2017 dönemini ve 27 OECD ülkesini içeren veri seti kapsamında sürdürülebilir ekonomik büyüme için temel bir etken olan toplam faktör verimliliğinin (TFV) makroekonomik belirleyicileri analiz edilmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, analiz edilen dönem ve ülke kapsamında literatüre güncel bir bakış açısı sunmak ve sürdürülebilir ekonomik büyümeye katkı sağlayacak politika setlerine yönelik altyapı sağlamaktır. Bu kapsamda, çalışma iki aşamalı bir ampirik uygulama içermektedir. İlk olarak, ekonomik istikrar endeksi, yenilik endeksi, teknoloji yayılım endeksi, eğitim endeksi ve ekonomik özgürlük endeksi hesaplanmakta olup sonraki aşamada ise panel regresyon yöntemleri kullanılarak bu değişkenlerin TFV üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmaktadır. Bulgular, TFV’yi belirleyen en önemli faktörün teknolojinin ülkeden ülkeye transfer mekanizmalarını gösteren teknoloji yayılım endeksi olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu değişkeni, eğitim ve yenilik endeksleri ve takip etmektedir. Ekonomik istikrar endeksi ile ekonomik özgürlük endeksinin de TFV üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisinin bulunduğu ancak bu etkilerin büyüklüğünün diğer değişkenlere göre daha sınırlı olduğu çalışmanın diğer önemli bulgularıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: VerimlilikTeknolojiBüyüme
JEL Classification : D24 , O00 , O47
DOI :10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903   IUP :10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903    Tam Metin (PDF)

Macroeconomic Determinants of Total Factor Productivity: An Analysis on the Example of OECD Countries

Nadide YiğiteliFahriye Öztürk

This study examines the macroeconomic determinants of total factor productivity (TFP), a critical factor for sustainable economic growth, within the scope of the dataset, including the 1990–2017 period and 27 OECD countries. The primary goal is to provide an up-to-date perspective on the literature within the scope of the analyzed period and country and provide an infrastructure for policy sets that will contribute to long-term economic growth. We use a two-stage empirical application in this context. First, the economic stability index, innovation index, technology diffusion index, education index, and economic freedom index are computed. Subsequently, the effect of these variables on TFP is investigated using panel regression methods. Results reveal that the technology diffusion index, which depicts the mechanisms of technology transfer from country to country, is the most important factor determining TFP. This variable is followed by the education and innovation indices. Another important finding of the study is that the economic stability and freedom indices have a significant impact on TFP. However, the magnitude of these effects is smaller than that of other variables.

Anahtar Kelimeler: ProductivityTechnologyGrowth
JEL Classification : D24 , O00 , O47

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Productivity shows the relationship between output and inputs in the production function. In this context, productivity expresses the ability to maximize output based on a specific input vector or minimize input based on a particular output vector in the production process. Total factor productivity (TFP) is defined as the productivity of all inputs contributing to the output production. In economies with restrictions on production factors and decreasing returns, sustainable economic growth cannot be achieved by increasing the number of production inputs such as capital and labor. In this case, the primary method to make economic growth sustainable is to increase the productivity of inputs. The increase in productivity based on the measurement method is the easiest one because of increased technical efficiency and technological progress. Countries can boost their production by utilizing their existing capacity. With technological advancement, the potential production limit expands. Moreover, the utilization of a greater portion of current potential or the adoption of new technologies is constrained by the limits of social, political, and institutional structures and economic growth conditions.

Within the scope of the dataset, including the period 1990–2017 and 27 OECD countries, this study examines the macroeconomic determinants of TFP, a fundamental determinant of sustainable economic growth. The study includes a two-stage analysis in this context. To begin, the economic stability index, innovation index, technology diffusion index, education index, and economic freedom index are computed. The effect of these variables on TFP is then investigated using panel regression methods in the following stage. Real exchange rate volatility and inflation rate variables are included in the macroeconomic stability index. The innovation index is obtained by high tech product exports, the number of researchers and technicians in the reserach and development (R&D) sector, scientific and technical journal articles, the total number of patents, and R&D expenditures. Additionally, the technology diffusion index is calculated, taking into account the variables of openness and foreign direct investment. The average years of education were scaled as an indicator of the education index and the economic freedom score as an indicator of institutional quality using the same methodology used to calculate indexes. The economic freedom score includes the average value of 12 variables: property rights, judicial effectiveness, government integrity, tax burden, government spending, fiscal health, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom, trade freedom, investment freedom, and financial freedom variables. In this context, the calculated indexes are the model’s independent variables, and the TFV index is the dependent variable.

Findings show that the coefficients of the explanatory variables of the innovation index, technology diffusion index, education index, and economic freedom index are positive. Therefore, countries with larger values of these variables tend to have higher TFP increases. Meanwhile, the coefficient of macroeconomic stability index is negative, which means higher values indicate a more unstable economic structure. Therefore, the negative value of this index suggests that TFP will also increase as stability increases. As a result, the signs of the predicted coefficients receive the expected values according to the economic theory and are statistically significant at the 1% significance level. The variable with the greatest impact power on TFV within the studied period and model framework is determined as the technology diffusion index. This variable is followed by the education index and the innovation index. The study’s findings are consistent with the fundamental theoretical framework of endogenous growth theories based on human capital, R&D, foreign direct investment, and international trade. Additionally, the results are consistent with the view that the classical schools will increase productivity through international specialization, division of labor, and resource allocation. 

The study’s findings indicate that countries seeking to move forward with stable income and economic growth should pursue policies that improve technology production and distribution conditions. Meanwhile, the country’s ability to mass produce advanced technologies is critical for the spread of technology transfer effects. Training a qualified workforce capable of utilizing advanced technology points for effective educational policies in terms of both quality and quantity is important. Developing skills and increasing awareness of new technologies necessitates the activation of lifelong learning processes. Attracting foreign direct investments that will contribute to technology transfers and capability development is also seen as an important policy tool. Meanwhile, innovative ecosystem that will motivate technological progress is determined by social, political, cultural, and macroeconomic variables. Ensuring ease of doing business and establishing institutional structures with precise, clear, and objective rules are important policy areas. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Abel, A., Bernanke, B. & Croushore, D. (2008). Macroeconomics (6th ed). Boston: Pearson, Addison-Wesley. google scholar
  • Aghion, P., Bacchetta, P., Ranciere, R., & Rogoff, K. (2009). Exchange rate volatility and productivity growth: The role of financial development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 56(4), 494-513. google scholar
  • Aguiar, D., Costa, L. & Silva, E. (2017). An attempt to explain differences in economic growth: A stochastic frontier approach. Bulletin of Economic Research, 4, E42-E65. google scholar
  • Ahmed, T. & Bhatti, A. A. (2020). Measurement and determinants of multi-factor productivity: A survey of literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 34(2), 293-319. google scholar
  • Akhremenko, A., Petrov, A., & Yureskul, E. (2019). Institutions, productivity change, and growth. In S. Smirnov, A. Ozyildirim, and P. Picchetti (eds.), Business Cycles in BRICS (pp. 29-54). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer. google scholar
  • Alvi, S. & Ahmed, A. M. (2014). Analyzing the ımpact of health and education on total factor productivity: A panel data approach. Indian Economic Review, 109-123. google scholar
  • Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1993). Human development index: Methodology and measurement. United Nations Development Programme Occasional Papers No. 12, New York: United Nations Development Programme. google scholar
  • Arisoy, I. (2012). The impact of foreign direct investment on total factor productivity and economic growth in Turkiye. The Journal of Development Areas, 46(1), 17-29. google scholar
  • Baltabaev, B. (2013). Foreign direct investment and total factor productivity growth: New macro evidence (Discussion Paper No. 27/13). Australia: Department of Economics, Business and Economics, MONASH University. google scholar
  • Baltagi, B. H. (2001). Econometric analysis of panel data (2nd ed). New York: Wiley. google scholar
  • Barro, R. J. & Lee, J. W. (2013). A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 19502010. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 184-198. Web: http://www.barrolee.com/ Updated: 2018. google scholar
  • Benhima, K. (2012). Exchange rate volatility and productivity growth: The role of liability dollarization. Open Economies Review, 23(3), 501-529. google scholar
  • Berg, A., & Krueger, A. (2003). Trade, growth, and poverty: A selective survey. IMF Working Paper, No. 03/30. google scholar
  • Blackwell III, J. L. (2005). Estimation and testing of fixed-effect panel-data systems. The STATA Journal, 5(2), 202-207. google scholar
  • Blanchard, O. (2003). Macroeconomics (3rd ed). Massachusetts: Prentice Hall. google scholar
  • Clark, P. K. (1982). Inflation and the productivity decline. The American Economic Review, 72(2), 149-154. google scholar
  • Coe, D.T. & Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 39(5), 859-887. google scholar
  • Coelli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., O’Donnell, C. J. & Battese, G.E. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis (2nd ed). Springer. google scholar
  • Diallo I. A. (2012). The effect of real exchange rate volatility on productivity growth. MPRA Paper, 36171, University of Munich Germany. google scholar
  • Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 2(3), 1-10. google scholar
  • Easterly, W. &Levine, R. (2001). What have we learned from a decade of empirical research on growth? It’s not factor accumulation: Stylized facts and growth models. The World Bank Economic Review, 15(2), 177-219. google scholar
  • Egert, B. (2016). Regulation, institutions, and productivity: New macroeconomic evidence from OECD countries. American Economic Review, 106(5), 109-113. google scholar
  • Freeman, C. & Soete, L. (2003). Yenilik iktisadı (Çev. E. Türkcan). TUBİTAK Yayınları. google scholar
  • Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Reenen, J. V. (2004). Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 883-895. google scholar
  • Gronroos, C. & Ojasalo, K. (2004). Service productivity: Towards a conceptualization of the transformation of inputs into economic results in services. Journal of Business Research, 57(4), 414-423. google scholar
  • Grosskopf, S. (1993). Efficiency and productivity, In H. 0. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell and S. S. Schmidt (Eds), The Measurement of Productive Eficiency. New York: Oxford University Press, 160-194. google scholar
  • Grossman, G. M. & Helpman, E. (1991). Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. European Economic Review, 35(2-3), 517-526. google scholar
  • Hall, R. E. & Jones, C. I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others?. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83-116. google scholar
  • Hodrick, R. & Prescott, E. C. (1997). Postwar U.S. business cycles: An empirical investigation. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 29(1), 1-16. google scholar
  • Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 281-312. google scholar
  • Isaksson, A., (2007). Determinants of total factor productivity: A literature review. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. google scholar
  • Ismihan, M. & Metin-Ozcan, K. (2009). Productivity and growth in an unstable emerging market economy: The case of Turkiye, 1960-2004. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 45(5), 4-18. google scholar
  • Jeanneney, S. G. & Hua, P. (2003). Real exchange rate and productivity in China. Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur le Developpement International. google scholar
  • Jones, C. (2001). İktisadi büyümeye giriş (Çev. Ş. Ateş, ve İ. Tuncer). İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1-44. google scholar
  • Kendrick, J. (1956). Productivity trends: Capital and labor”. In Productivity Trends: Capital and Labor. NBER. 3-23. google scholar
  • Kennedy, P. (2008). A guide to econometrics. Oxford: Willey Blackwell. google scholar
  • Kowalski, P. A. (2003). Nominal and real convergence in alternative exchange rate regimes in transition countries: Implications for the EMU Accession. CASE Network Studies and Analyses, (270). google scholar
  • Kök, R. & Deliktaş, E. (2003). Endüstri iktisadında verimlilik ölçme ve strateji geliştirme teknikleri. İzmir: DEÜ İİBF Yayınları, Yayın Karar No.25-8/1. google scholar
  • Kutan, A. M. & Yiğit, T. M. (2009). European integration, productivity growth and real convergence: Evidence from the new member states. Economic Systems, 33(2), 127-137. google scholar
  • Lafrance, R. & Schembri, L. L. (2000). The exchange rate, productivity, and the standard of living. Bank of Canada Review, Winter, 17-28. google scholar
  • Levin, A., C.-F. Lin & C.-S. J. Chu. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24. google scholar
  • Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3-42 google scholar
  • Mankiw, N. G., Phelps, E. S. & Romer, P. M. (1995). The growth of nations. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 275-326. google scholar
  • Mankiw, N.G., Romer, D. & Weil, D.N. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. The QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 107(2), 407-437. google scholar
  • Miller, S. M. & Upadhyay, M. P. (2002). Total factor productivity, human capital and outward orientation: Differences by stage of development and geographic regions. University of Connecticut Economics Working Papers, 33. google scholar
  • Miller, T., Kim, B. A. & Roberts, M. J. (2021). 2021 Index of economic freedom. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. google scholar
  • North, D. C., & Thomas, R. P. (1973). The rise of the western world: A new economic history. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • OECD. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018. Web: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org [Erişim:01/05/2022]. google scholar
  • Olomola, P. A. & Osinubi, T. T. (2018). Determinants of total factor productivity in Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Turkiye (1980-2014). Emerging Economy Studies, 4(2), 192-217. google scholar
  • Park, J. (2010). Projection of long-term total factor productivity growth for 12 Asian economies. Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series, (227). google scholar
  • Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20(3), 597-625. google scholar
  • Pesaran, M. H. (2003). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. Web: https://bit.ly/329NmVX [Erişim: 27/09/2019]. google scholar
  • Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. IZA Discussion Paper 1240. Web: http://repec.iza.org/dp1240.pdf [Erişim: 27/09/2019]. google scholar
  • Polterovich, V. & Popov, V. (2003). Accumulation of foreign exchange reserves and long term growth. MPRA Paper 20069, New Economic School, Moscow. google scholar
  • Puskarova, P., & Piribauer, P. (2016). The impact of knowledge spillovers on total factor productivity revisited: New evidence from selected European capital regions. Economic Systems, 40(3), 335344. google scholar
  • Ramirez, M. D. (2006). Does foreign direct ınvestment enhance labor productivity growth in Chile? A co-integration analysis. Eastern Economic Journal, 32(2), 205-220. google scholar
  • Reppas, P. A. & Christopoulos, D. K. (2005). The export-output growth nexus: Evidence from African and Asian countries. Journal of Policy Modeling, 27(8), 929-940. google scholar
  • Romer, P. M. (1989). Human capital and growth: Theory and evidence. National Bureau of Economic Research, No. w3173. google scholar
  • Romer, P.M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 10021037. google scholar
  • Schumpeter, J. (1928). The ınstability of capitalism. The Economic Journal, 38(151), 361. https:// doi:10.2307/2224315 google scholar
  • Schumpeter, J.A., (1932). Development, translated by M.C. Becker and T. Knudsen. J. Econ. Lit. XLIII, 108-120, with an introduction by M.C. Becker, H.U. EBlinger, U. Hedtke and T. Knudsen. google scholar
  • Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development (Trans. R. Opie). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  • Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94. google scholar
  • Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312-320. google scholar
  • Stiroh, K. J. (2001). What drives productivity growth?. Economic Policy Review, 16, 37-59. google scholar
  • Stock, J. H. & Watson, M. W. (2007). Introduction to econometrics (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/ Addison-Wesley. google scholar
  • Stone, S. & Shepherd B. (2011). Dynamic gains from trade: The role of intermediate inputs and equipment imports. OECD Trade Policy Working Papers, No. 110. google scholar
  • Tebaldi, E. (2016). The dynamics of total factor productivity and institutions. Journal of Economic Development, 41(4), 1-25. google scholar
  • Tochkov, K. (2020). Regional real exchange rates and growth: Evidence from resource-based regional economies. Review of International Economics, 1-15. google scholar
  • UNDP. (2020). Human Development Reports Technical Note. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/ default/files/hdr2020_technical_notes.pdf, [Erişim:27/09/2020]. google scholar
  • Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297-316. google scholar
  • Woo, J. (2009). Productivity growth and technological diffusion through foreign direct investment. Economic Inquiry, 47(2), 226-248. google scholar
  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. google scholar
  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (2nd ed). New York: South- Western. google scholar
  • Yiğiteli, N. & Öztürk, F. (2021). OECD ülkelerinde toplam faktör verimliliği: Stokastik sınır yaklaşımı ile bir panel veri uygulaması. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 1108-1147. google scholar
  • Yiğiteli, N. & Turan, D. (2018). Ani duruş sorunu, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve savunma sanayi özelinde bir değerlendirme. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 3(2), 79-108. google scholar

Atıflar

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


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Yiğiteli, N., & Öztürk, F. (2022). Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 72(1), 293-328. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903


AMA

Yiğiteli N, Öztürk F. Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi. 2022;72(1):293-328. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903


ABNT

Yiğiteli, N.; Öztürk, F. Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 72, n. 1, p. 293-328, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Yiğiteli, Nadide, and Fahriye Öztürk. 2022. “Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz.” İstanbul İktisat Dergisi 72, no. 1: 293-328. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903


Chicago: Humanities Style

Yiğiteli, Nadide, and Fahriye Öztürk. Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz.” İstanbul İktisat Dergisi 72, no. 1 (Oct. 2022): 293-328. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903


Harvard: Australian Style

Yiğiteli, N & Öztürk, F 2022, 'Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz', İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 293-328, viewed 5 Oct. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Yiğiteli, N. and Öztürk, F. (2022) ‘Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz’, İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 72(1), pp. 293-328. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903 (5 Oct. 2022).


MLA

Yiğiteli, Nadide, and Fahriye Öztürk. Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz.” İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, vol. 72, no. 1, 2022, pp. 293-328. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903


Vancouver

Yiğiteli N, Öztürk F. Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi [Internet]. 5 Oct. 2022 [cited 5 Oct. 2022];72(1):293-328. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903 doi: 10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903


ISNAD

Yiğiteli, Nadide - Öztürk, Fahriye. Toplam Faktör Verimliliğinin Makroekonomik Belirleyenleri: OECD Ülkeleri Örneğinde Bir Analiz”. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi 72/1 (Oct. 2022): 293-328. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1086903



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim12.03.2022
Kabul23.05.2022
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma30.06.2022

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.