Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/JEPR1016857   IUP :10.26650/JEPR1016857    Tam Metin (PDF)

Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği

Esra Soyu YıldırımCuma DemirtaşMunise Ilıkkan Özgür

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’nin ekonomik, finansal ve politik risk oranları ile büyüme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisini incelemektir. Çalışmada 2000:01– 2020:06 döneminde söz konusu risk oranları ile büyüme arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek için Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi, Hatemi-J tarafından geliştirilen Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi ve zamanla değişen simetrik ve asimetrik nedensellik testleri kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular şu şekildedir: (i) Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testine göre; finansal riskten büyümeye, ekonomik riskten finansal riske ve ekonomik riskten politik riske doğru nedensellik ilişkisi bulunmaktadır. (ii) Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testine göre finansal riskten büyümeye doğru nedensellik ilişkisi vardır. Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto asimetrik nedensellik testine göre; finansal riskteki pozitif şok büyümede pozitif şoka, finansal riskteki negatif şok büyümede negatif şoka ve politik riskteki negatif şok ise büyümede pozitif şoka yol açmaktadır. (iii) Zamanla değişen simetrik nedensellik testine göre nedensellik ilişkisinin olduğu dönemler; ekonomik riskten büyümeye doğru, finansal riskten büyümeye doğru ve politik riskten büyümeye doğru tespit edilmiştir. Zamanla değişen asimetrik nedensellik testine göre nedensellik ilişkisinin olduğu dönemler; ekonomik riskteki negatif şokun büyümedeki pozitif şoka ekonomik riskteki pozitif şokun büyümedeki negatif şoka; finansal riskteki negatif şokun büyümedeki pozitif şoka, finansal riskteki pozitif şokun büyümedeki negatif şoka etkilerini göstermektedir. Ancak söz konusu dönemde sadece politik riskteki pozitif şokun büyümede negatif şoka neden olduğu dönem görülmektedir.

JEL Classification : F34 , E43 , G32
DOI :10.26650/JEPR1016857   IUP :10.26650/JEPR1016857    Tam Metin (PDF)

Causality Relationship Between Economic, Financial, Political Risk and Growth: The Case of Turkey

Esra Soyu YıldırımCuma DemirtaşMunise Ilıkkan Özgür

This study aims to examine the causality relationship between Turkey’s economic, financial and political risk ratios and growth. Toda-Yamamoto causality, Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto causality, and time-varying symmetric and asymmetric causality tests were used to examine the relationship between the risk ratios and growth between 2000- 2020. The findings show that (i) The Toda-Yamamoto causality test shows a causal relationship between financial risk and growth, economic risk and financial risk, and economic risk and political risk. (ii) The Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto causality test revealed a causal relationship between financial risk and growth. The Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto, asymmetric causality test, showed that a positive shock in financial risk causes a positive shock in growth, a negative shock in financial risk causes a negative shock in growth, and a negative shock in political risk causes a positive shock in growth. (iii) The time-varying relationship symmetric causality tests allowed for detecting causality between economic risk and growth, financial risk and growth, and political risk and growth. The time-varying relationship asymmetric causality tests revealed that a negative shock in economic risk caused a positive shock in growth; a positive shock in economic risk caused a negative shock in growth; a negative shock in financial risk caused a positive shock in growth and demonstrated the effects of the positive shock in financial risk as a negative shock in growth. However, a negative shock in growth was only observed when there was a positive shock in political risk.

JEL Classification : F34 , E43 , G32

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Economic growth continues to be one of the areas that researchers focus on because small increases in the growth rates of countries can create significant effects that can change their welfare and living standards. Questions such as “why are some countries developing more rapidly than others?”, “Why do different countries develop differently?” has always been on the agenda of economists since different national growth performances have caused significant differences in indicators such as per capita income and living standards (Acemoğlu, 2012).

Das and Loxley (2015), Berber and Artan (2004), and Barro (1995) reveal the relationship between inflation and growth; Kutlu and Yurttagüler (2016) and Pattillo et al. (2011) indicate a relationship between foreign debt and economic growth; Kenourgios and Samitas (2007) and Dudian and Popa (2013) identified a relationship between credit and economic growth; Caporale et al., (2009), Calderon and Liu (2003), Christopoulos and Tsionas (2004), and Soytaş and Küçükkaya (2011) examine the relationship between financial development and economic growth. In addition, studies such as Feng (2001), Chen and Feng (1996), Tang and Abosedra (2014), Çela and Hysa (2021), and Pasha (2020) have investigated the relationship between political indicators and growth. These studies narrowly analyze the effect of economic, financial, and political variables on economic growth based on a single subcomponent. However, considering that these risk variables have more than one subcomponent, it is essential to examine the effects of these variables on economic growth more comprehensively. In this study, the effect of economic, financial, and political risk ratios on economic growth is examined for Turkey during the period of 2000:01-2020:06. For this purpose, the following tests were used: the Toda-Yamamoto causality test, the Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto causality test developed by Hatemi-J, and the time-varying symmetric and asymmetrical causality tests of the Hatemi-J test, which examine the causality relationship in terms of sub-periods.

According to the findings, The Toda-Yamamoto causality test shows a causal relationship between the financial risk variable and economic growth, between the economic risk variable and the financial risk variable, and between the economic risk variable and the political risk variable. According to the Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto causality test findings, there is a causality relationship between the financial risk variable and economic growth. According to the Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto asymmetric causality test findings, it is seen that economic growth reacts positively to the positive shock arising from the financial risk variable, while economic growth responds negatively to an adverse shock. A negative shock in the political risk variable causes a positive shock on economic growth. According to the time-varying symmetric causality test findings, in general terms, the periods in which there is a causal relationship between the economic risk variable and economic growth are the following: in the periods 2003:12-2012:02, 2014:06-2017:05, 2018:01-2020:06; economic growth is affected by the financial risk variable in the period of 2000:02-2011:05 and by the political risk variable in the period of 2002:01-2018:05. According to the time-varying asymmetric causality test findings, it is seen that negative shocks in the economic risk variable affect economic growth positively in the period of 2010:05-2020:06, and the positive shocks in the economic risk variable affect economic growth negatively in the period of 2013:11-2019:04. These shocks positively affect the financial risk variable in the period 2010:05-2020:06, while having a negative effect in the period of 2011:02-2018:07. The effects of shocks in economic and financial risk variables on economic growth occurred in similar periods. This situation strengthens the theoretical view that economic and financial risks support each other. Even though the political risk variable caused no positive shock to economic growth in the said period, there was an increase in the political risk ratio in the 2011:05-2017:01 period, which negatively affected the economic growth. When the effect of risk types on economic growth is evaluated generally, improvement or deterioration in all these risk types in Turkey has positive or negative effects on economic growth. In addition, in recent years, the effect of economic and financial risks has been stronger than the effect of political risk on economic growth. In the light of this information, it can be said that it is necessary to take policies and measures to reduce economic and financial risks. In this context, there has been a deterioration in economic growth in Turkey recently, especially after 2012; Indicators such as GDP per capita, exchange rate, budget balance, inflation rate, current account balance, and external debts show that remedial measures should be taken. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Acemoğlu, D. (2012). Introduction to economic growth. Journal of Economic Theory, 147, 545-550. google scholar
  • Aisen, A., & Veiga, F. J. (2013). How does political instability affect economic growth?. European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 151-167. google scholar
  • Akimov, A., Wijeweraa, A., & Dollery, B. (2009). Financial development and economic growth: Evidence from transiton economies. Applied Financial Economics, 19(12), 999-1008. google scholar
  • Alper, A. E. (2018). BRICS-T ülkelerinde politik istikrar ve ekonomik performans ilişkisi üzerine bir analiz. Business and Economics Research Journal 9(1), 49-56. google scholar
  • Alesina, A., Özler, S., Roubini, N., & Swagel, P. (1996). Political stability and economic growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 1(2), 189-211. google scholar
  • Arslan, Ü. (2011). Siyasi istikrarsızlık ve ekonomik performans: Türkiye örneği. Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(1), 73-80. google scholar
  • Asteriou, D., & Price, S. (2001). Political instability and economic growth: UK time series evidence. Scottish Journal of 'Polttical Economy, 48(4), 383-399. google scholar
  • Baklouti, N. & Boujelbene, Y. (2018). An econometric study of the role of the political stability on the relationship between democracy and economic growth. Panoeconomicus, 67(2), 187-206. google scholar
  • Barro, R. J. (1995). Inflation and economic growth. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 35(2), 407-443. google scholar
  • Berber, M., & Artan, S. (2004). Enflasyon ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Turkish Economic Association Discussion Paper, 21, 1-14. google scholar
  • Belkhir, M., Grira, J., Hassan, M. K., & Soumare, I. (2018). Islamic banks and political risk: International evidence. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 74, 39-55. google scholar
  • Beşkaya, A., & Koç, A. (2006). Ekonomik büyüme ve kalkınmada ekonomik özgürlüklerin rolü ve önemi. Liberal Düşünce, Sayı 43, 1-30. google scholar
  • Brooks, C., & Hinich, M. (1998). Episodic nonstationarity in exchange rates. Appl. Econ. Lett., 5(11), 719-722. google scholar
  • Brückner, M., & Gradstein, M. (2015). Income growth, ethnic polarization, and political risk: Evidence from international oil price shocks. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(3), 575-594. google scholar
  • Calderon, C., & Liu, L. (2003). The direction of causality between financial development and economic growth. Journal of Development Economics, 72(1), 321-334. google scholar
  • Campos, N. F., & Nugent, J. B. (2002). Who is afraid of political instability?. Journal of Development Economics, 67(1), 157-172. google scholar
  • Caporale, M. C., Rault, C., & Sova, A. R. (2009). Financial development and economic growth: evidence from ten new EU members. Discussion Papers, No: 904, 1-39. google scholar
  • Caspi, I. (2017). Rtadf: testing for bubbles with eviews. Journal of Statistical Software, 81(1), 1-16. google scholar
  • Chen, B., & Feng, Y. (1996). Some political determinants of economic growth: theory and empirical implications. European Journal of Political Economy, 12(4), 609-627 google scholar
  • Christopoulos, D. K., & Tsionas, E. G. (2004). Financial development and economic growth: evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Development Economics, 73(1), 55-74. google scholar
  • Çela, A., & Hysa, E. (2021). Impact of political ınstability on economic growth in CEE countries. Ekonomika Regiona [Economy of region], 17(2), 582-592. google scholar
  • Das, A., & Loxley J. (2015). Non-linear relationship between ınflation and growth ın developing countries. Economic & Political Weekly, 1(37), 59-64. google scholar
  • Demez, S., Kızılkaya, F., & Turan, İ. (2019). NIC ülkelerinde politik istikrar ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. Siirt Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 14, 485-499. google scholar
  • Demetriades, Panicos O., & Husseın, Khaled A. (1996). Does financial development cause economic growth? Timeseries evidence from 16 countries. Journal of Development Economics, 51(2), 387-411. google scholar
  • Demirgil, H. (2011). Politik istikrarsızlık, belirsizlik ve makroekonomi: Türkiye örneği (1970-2006). Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 16(2), 123-144. google scholar
  • Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057- 1072. google scholar
  • Dudian, M., & Popa, R. A. (2013). Financial development and economic growth in central and eastern europe. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 20(8/585), 59-68. google scholar
  • Erdoğan, S., Gedikli, A., & Kırca, M. (2019). A note on time-varying causality between natural gas consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Resources Policy, 64, 1-7. google scholar
  • Feng, Y. (2001). Political Freedom, Political ınstability and policy uncertainty: A study of political ınstitutions and private ınvestment in developing countries. International Studies Quarterly, 45, 271-294. google scholar
  • Fıscher, Stanley. (1993). The role of macroeconomic factors in growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(3), 485-512. google scholar
  • Granger, C., & Yoon, G. (2002). Hidden cointegration. Department of Economics Working Paper University of California, No:2002-02. google scholar
  • Gregory, R. P. (2019). Financial openness and entrepreneurship. Research in International Business and Finance, 48, 48-58. google scholar
  • Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics (Third edit). McGraw Hill Com. Inc. google scholar
  • Gurgul, H., & Lach, L. (2013). Political instability and economic growth: evidence from two decades of transition in CEE. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 46(2), 189-202. google scholar
  • Gür, T. H., & Akbulut, H. (2012). Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde politik istikrarın ekonomik büyüme üzerine etkisi. Sosyoekonomi, 282-300. google scholar
  • Hatemi-J, A. (2003). A new method to choose optimal lag order ın stable and unstable VAR models. Applied Economics Letters, 10(3), 135-137. google scholar
  • Hatemi-J, A. (2012). Asymmetric causality tests with an application. Empirical Economics, 43(1), 447-456. google scholar
  • Hacker, R., & Hatemi-J, A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: Theory and application. Appl. Econ., 38(13), 1489-1500. google scholar
  • Howell, L. D., & Chaddick, B. (1994). Models of political risk for foreign ınvestment and trade- an assessment of three approaches. The Columbia Journal of World Business, 70-91. google scholar
  • ICRG (2020). International country risk guide political risk rating system, Political Risk Services Group. google scholar
  • Jones, C. I. (2017). İktisadi büyümeye giriş. (Sanlı Ateş;İsmail Tuncer,Çev.) İstanbul:Literatür Yayıncılık google scholar
  • Jong-A-Pin, R. (2009). On the measurement of political instability and its ımpact on economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 25, 15-29. google scholar
  • Karamelikli, H., & Bayar, Y., (2016). Makroekonomik ve finansal istikrarın ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, ICAFR 16 Özel Sayısı, 225-236. google scholar
  • Kartal, G., & Öztürk, S. (2017). Türkiye’de politik istikrarsızlık ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(4), 250-270 google scholar
  • Kamacı, A. (2019). Politik istikrarsızlık-ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: 20 OECD ülkesi için panel veri analizi. Ticari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 75-85. google scholar
  • Kamacı, A., (2016). Dış borçların ekonomik büyüme ve enflasyon üzerine etkileri: Panel eşbütünleşme ve panel nedensellik analizi. International Journal of Cultural and Social Studies (IntJCSS), Volume 2 (Special Issue 1), 165-175. google scholar
  • Kanca, O.C. (2012). Türkiye’de işsizlik ve iktisadi büyüme arasındaki nedenselliğin ampirik bir analizi. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(2), 1-18. google scholar
  • Kenourgios, D. & A. Samitas (2007). Financial development and economic growth in a transition economy: Evidence for Poland. Journal of Financial Decision Making, 3(1), 35-48. google scholar
  • Kırca, M., & Yıldız, Ü. (2020). Türkiye için kredi risk primi (cds) ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki zamanla değişen nedensellik ilişkileri. International Journal Of Afro-Eurasıan Research (IJAR), 5(10), 17-24. google scholar
  • Kızılkaya, O. & Sofuoğlu, E. (2016). BRIC-T ülkelerinde politik risk ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: heterojen panel nedensellik analizi. Uluslararası Ekonomi Konferansı, Türkiye Ekonomi Kurumu, UEK-TEK 2016, 223-232. google scholar
  • Kutlu, S. & Yurttagüler, İ. M. (2016). Türkiye’de dış borç ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: 1998-2014 dönemi için bir nedensellik analizi. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 38(1), 229-248. google scholar
  • Muscatelli, V.A. & Tirelli P. (2001). Unemployment and growth: some empirical evidence from structural time series models. Journal ofApplied Econometrics, 33, 1083-1088. google scholar
  • Nazeer, A. M. & Masih, M. (2017). Impact of political instability on foreign direct investment and economic growth: evidence from Malaysia. MPRA Paper No. 79418 https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/79418/ google scholar
  • Okafor, G. (2015). The impact of political instability on the economic growth of ecowas member countries. Defence and Peace Economics, 28(2), 208-229 google scholar
  • Parlakyıldız, F. M. (2015). Makro ekonomik ve politik istikrarsızlığın ekonomik performans üzerine etkisi: Latin Amerika örneği. Çukurova Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 19(2), 1-11. google scholar
  • Pattillo, C. (2011). External debt and growth. Review ofEconomics and Institutions, 2(3), Fall, Article 2, 1-30. google scholar
  • Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing For A Unit Root İn Time Series Regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335346. google scholar
  • Pasha, S. (2020). The impact of political instability on economic growth: the case of Guyana. MPRA Paper No. 103145, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/103145/1/MPRA_paper_103145.pdf google scholar
  • Radu, M. (2015). Political stability - a condition for sustainable growth in Romania?. Procedia Economics and Finance, 30, 751-757. google scholar
  • Soytaş, U., & Küçükkaya, E. (2011). Economic growth and financial development in Turkey: New evidence. Applied Economics Letters, 18(6), 595-600. google scholar
  • Şanlısoy, S., & Kök, R. (2010). Politik istikrarsızlık ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği (1987-2006). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 101-125 google scholar
  • Tang, C.F. & Abosedra, S. (2014). The impacts of tourism,energy consumption and political instability on economic growth in the MENA countries. Energy Policy, 68, 458-464. google scholar
  • Toda, H., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. J. Econom., 66(1), 225-250. google scholar
  • Uçak, S. (2017). Cari denge ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye analizi, MCBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 15(2), 107-140. google scholar
  • Üçler, G. (2017). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar için kurumların önemi: Gelişmekte olan ülkeler üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 54(627), 73-85. google scholar
  • Yalçınkaya, Ö., & Kaya, V. (2017). Politik istikrarın/istikrarsızlığın ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkileri: dünyanın en büyük ilk yirmi ekonomisi üzerinde bir uygulama (1996-2015). Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 13(2): 277-298. google scholar
  • Yapraklı, S., & Güngör, B. (2007). Ülke riskinin hisse senedi fiyatlarına etkisi: IMKB 100 endeksi üzerine bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 62(2), 199-2018. google scholar
  • Yılancı, V., & Bozoklu, Ş. (2014). Price and trade volume relationship in Turkish capital market: Time-varying asymmetric causality analysis. Ege Akademik Bakis (Ege Acad.Rev.), 14(2), 211-220. google scholar
  • Younis, M., Lin, XX., Sharahili, Y., & Selvarathinam, S. (2008). Political stability and economic growth in Asia. American Journal of Applied Sciences 5(3):203- 208. google scholar
  • Zouhaier, H., & Kefi, M.K. (2012). Interaction between political instability and investment. Journal Of Economics And International Finance, 4(2):49-54. google scholar

Atıflar

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


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Soyu Yıldırım, E., Demirtaş, C., & Ilıkkan Özgür, M. (2022). Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 165-186. https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1016857


AMA

Soyu Yıldırım E, Demirtaş C, Ilıkkan Özgür M. Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2022;9(1):165-186. https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1016857


ABNT

Soyu Yıldırım, E.; Demirtaş, C.; Ilıkkan Özgür, M. Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 9, n. 1, p. 165-186, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Soyu Yıldırım, Esra, and Cuma Demirtaş and Munise Ilıkkan Özgür. 2022. “Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği.” İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi 9, no. 1: 165-186. https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1016857


Chicago: Humanities Style

Soyu Yıldırım, Esra, and Cuma Demirtaş and Munise Ilıkkan Özgür. Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği.” İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi 9, no. 1 (Feb. 2023): 165-186. https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1016857


Harvard: Australian Style

Soyu Yıldırım, E & Demirtaş, C & Ilıkkan Özgür, M 2022, 'Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği', İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 165-186, viewed 4 Feb. 2023, https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1016857


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Soyu Yıldırım, E. and Demirtaş, C. and Ilıkkan Özgür, M. (2022) ‘Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği’, İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), pp. 165-186. https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1016857 (4 Feb. 2023).


MLA

Soyu Yıldırım, Esra, and Cuma Demirtaş and Munise Ilıkkan Özgür. Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği.” İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 9, no. 1, 2022, pp. 165-186. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1016857


Vancouver

Soyu Yıldırım E, Demirtaş C, Ilıkkan Özgür M. Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi [Internet]. 4 Feb. 2023 [cited 4 Feb. 2023];9(1):165-186. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1016857 doi: 10.26650/JEPR1016857


ISNAD

Soyu Yıldırım, Esra - Demirtaş, Cuma - Ilıkkan Özgür, Munise. Ekonomik, Finansal ve Politik Risk ile Büyüme Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği”. İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi 9/1 (Feb. 2023): 165-186. https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1016857



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim31.10.2021
Kabul30.12.2021
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma27.01.2022

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.