Economics, Management, and Financial Markets

Volume 7(1), 2012, pp. 6780, ISSN 1842-3191

EXPORT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN TURKEY:

COINTEGRATION AND CAUSALITY ANALYSIS
FATIH MANGIR
[email protected]
Seluk University
ABSTRACT. This paper investigates the empirical evidence on the link between
export and economic growth by using quarterly time series data for the Turkish
economy over the period 20022011. The study applies Johensen and Juselius cointegration and Granger causality test. Further, the co-integration analysis established
that GDP and export were found to be co-integrated and suggesting an existence of
long-run relationship. In the short-run, we find evidence of short-run bidirectional
causality to support export-led growth by using Granger causality tests in Turkey
for the period between 2002 and 2011. In the long run, our result shows existence
of long run unidirectional causality between economic growth and export in the
long-run.
JEL Classification: D92, F43, N1, O41
Keywords: trade and growth, export-led growth (ELP) strategy,
cointegration and Granger-Causality Test

1. Introduction
Recently, a central role of foreign trade policy for economic growth has
been gained a great attention of economic researches for developing and
developed countries. Foreign trade has been accepted as an increasingly large
role in the growth of world economy since A. Smiths traditional economic
theory, and an even larger role in developing and emerging economies.
Trade leads to growth by specialization in production. And specialization
of countrys abundant production factor also enable country to trade more
costly goods from the rest of the world and boost welfare. Integration to
the world economies also helps country to change its technological capacity
through more advanced countries technology transfer. Also by increasing
trade also restricts monopoly power in country and holds prices down for
67

consumer benefits. However, it is clear that benefiting trade policy for

economic growth highly depends on the macroeconomic environment, the
design and selecting of trade policies and world economic outlook. Trade
policy adopted by a country also strongly influences the direction, trend and
growth of a country. Trade policy can be import substitution (IS) meaning
protective trade policy or export-oriented with free trade policy. Nurkse
(1953), Lewis (1956), Clark (1957), Tinbergen (1958), Hirschman (1959),
Rostow (1960), Lebenstein (1963), R. Rodan (1964), Singer (1966), Myrdal
(1968), Prebisch (1969) all recommended an inward looking development
path with a leading governmental role in growth process (Hirway, 1998:3).
According to these economists, developing countries should expand the
role of the industrial sector in the domestic market to substitute for imports
by adopting IS strategy. The main target of IS strategy is to support infant
industries. Infant industry protection policy is a policy that allows an immature industry to expand production by temporarily providing some protection such as import tariffs and tries to make the industry internationally
competitive by picking up dynamic economies of scale (Kimura, 2002:4).
These countries mostly performed import substitution strategy that encourages
industrial growth within a nation in order to reduce imports of manufactures,
save foreign exchange, provide jobs, and reduce foreign dependency.
However, the import substitution has several numbers of criticisms
(Jayanthakumaran, 2000: 14):
- Under import substitution strategy, countries experienced both low volume
of exports and high dependence on foreign intermediate goods due to
the exchange rate appreciation. This would mean that the trade balance
will get worse due to the lower export. This in turn leads the country
(that applies IS strategy) to borrow money in order to finance the trade
deficit.
- A real possibility of government failures and the costs associated with
resulting from the attitudes of bureaucrats, influence of powerful
pressure groups and substituting private interests on the expense of
public interests by politicians and employees needs to be addressed.
- Prevailing foreign exchange controls may tend to promote the use of
more inappropriate capital-intensive techniques of production.
- Exchange controls and protections together may result in a vast increase
in rent-seeking activities.
- A forgoing view is that infant industries in developing countries have
had a tendency never to grow up.
- Import-substitution policy creates biases in the incentive structure and
lowers the growth of potential exports in the long term. This necessitates
the need of export-oriented policy over time.
68

Therefore, for the failures of the IS strategy listed above, counties transformed to the structure of trade policies into export-led growth (ELP) strategy. ELG strategy recommends countries to prepare economic structure for
export oriented production. ELP model is an economic policy aiming to
develop industries that a country has a comparative advantage in the export
goods.
According to mainstream literature, the potential benefits associated with
the ELG strategy with respect to IS is as follows (Felipe, 2010: 263):
(i) the domestic resource cost of earning a unit of foreign exchange tends to
be less than the domestic resource cost of saving a unit of foreign exchange;
(ii) as the ELG rests on exogenous world demand, a developing economy
can overcome diseconomies of small size. And in general, technologyeconomic factors (e.g., minimum efficient size of plant, increasing returns
to scale, indivisibilities in the production process) imply a superiority of
development through export promotion;
(iii) for being exposed to world competition, firms in the country can
increase X-efficiency (i.e., the forces that intensify motivation that result
in lower cost curves for the firm);
(iv) a protrade strategy may attract foreign direct investment;
(v) ELG contributes more than does IS to employment creation and improvement in the distribution of income; and
(vi) a higher rate of growth of exports is associated with a high growth.
Transformation from import substitution strategy to export lead trade increases the efficiency and advantages in production by revaluation and
transfer of technology.
However, export-led growth has also some problem and drawbacks
affected world economies. The main problem of export-led growth is proposed by a standard Keynesian theory. According to Keynes, demand
determined equilibrium, and maintains that the level of economic activity
adjusts to equal the level of aggregate demand. Within a Keynesian framework, export-led policy suffers from an inherent fallacy of composition
whereby one countrys attempts to boost domestic aggregate demand by
increasing exports results in a reduction of domestic aggregate demand in
the country it is exporting to (Palley, 2003: 178).
Second weakness of ELG is that the relation between economic growth
and development of domestic markets is blocked. The more dependent
foreign demand leads less developed countries to lose their rivalries situation
and so makes countries fragile to instabilities of world economy. The ELG
strategy is also blamed for mainly contributed to the Asian financial crisis,
19971998. During the crisis countries such as Korea, Thailand, Indonesia
and the Philippines very much affected (Thesen, 2007: 58).
69

In spite of many weakness of ELG stated above, there is a possibility of

causal affect between export and growth and foreign trade may play a central
role in a countrys economic growth and development. The main aim of this
study is to examine the nexus of exports and economic growth in Turkey.
We identify the 19721979 period as the deepening of the industrialization strategy based on import substitution (ISI) (Boratav and Yeldan,
2002: 4).
As in many other countries that adopted ISI, Turkey faced with a serious
balance of payment crisis in the late 1970s as a result of rapid increase in
the cost of oil imports and increasing import needs during the process of
capital deepening. The balance of payment problems slowed down economic
growth, and caused even a decline in GDP in 1979 and 1980. The period
of ISI was ended by another military coup in 1980 (Taymaz and Ylmaz,
2007:3).
Turkey in the 1980s changed structural reforms of its economy into
export-lead development strategy. Trade reforms and export promotion
successfully served three purposes in the adjustment strategy of the government in the 1980s: to alleviate balance of payments constraints, to restore
the confidence of the international financial institutions and external creditors,
and to stimulate efficient economic growth (ni and Webb, 92: 1). With
the Jan. 24 decision in 1980, Turkey economic policy makers aim to stabilize
domestic prices, to finance economic growth with the foreign capital, and
to adopt market-based economic model. The main parameters of these
decisions are the export subsidies and exchange rates depreciation to make
export sector more competitive.
ni (2009) characterize this period as an export boom and summarize
with the rise of export-oriented capital; broadening of the neoliberal coalition
in the 1990s to include small and medium sized export-oriented capital
(Anatolian tigers); beginnings of globalization of Turkish big business especially with the Customs Union.
The most important step towards increasing foreign exchange earnings
was the devaluation of Turkish lira approximately 50% against the US
dollar. Moreover, to close the price scissors between official and black
market prices, the Central Bank began to set the US dollar rate daily. To
promote exports, supports such as tax rebates, duty-free allowances and
low-interest credits were granted to exporting firms. The total amount of
subsidies reached up to 30% of the total value of exports in mid 1980s
(Kzlca and zcan, 2008: 139). However, import liberalization process in
the late 1980s led to an increase in the imports of consumer goods. In 1990,
further import liberalization measures were introduced during a period of
real exchange appreciation, with the result that there was a noticeable trade
and current account deficit (Utkulu and Durmu, 2004: 249).
70

Graph 1 shows the data covering 2002 and 2011 years belonging to the
exports and GDP of Turkey which are obtained from Turkish Statistical
Institute and are displayed in Graph 1. That export and GDP run parallel in
some period can be seen from the graph. Therefore, the purpose of the
present study is to find the direction of causality between exports and GDP.
To that and, we have carried out a Granger Causality Test on the data
displayed in Graph 1 and present and discuss the results below.

Graph 1. 20022011 GDP and Export (Thousands of , Quarterly data)

2. Literature Review
The determiner role of export in economic growth has been argued in
many theories. For classical economic theory, trade blocks such as tariffs and
quotas should be removed and liberal policies of trade should be implemented.
Because, international trade leads countries to obtain economic gain from
division of labor and specialization and it plays an important role in economic
growth.
The neo-classical theory, also favor trade activities and economic growth
gain of countries by introducing demand side of international trade, the
relationship between factor allocation, income distribution and international
trade.
The new or endogenous growth theory which is a view of the economy
that incorporates important point, technology can be transferred internationally
through trade and imitated by late-coming countries. The imitation of technology has two opposing effects on the incentives of innovating firms in
developed countries.
Besides core economic theories, the nexus between export and economic
growth have been popular subjects both theoretically and empirically in
international economics area. Several studies have been detected this relation
by time series and cross section analysis.
71

While some of the studies tested the export-growth relation supports the
export-led growth hypothesis, the others doesnt conclude the validity of
the hypothesis. Michaely (1977), Balassa (1978), Krueger (1978), Chenery
(1979), Tyler (1981), Kavoussi (1984), Ram (1985), Chow (1987), Fosu
(1990), Salvatore and Hatcher (1991), Crospo and Wrz (2003) are the
studies about this subject were the results support the export growth hypothesis (Anwer and Sampath, 1997: 3). Jung and Marshall (1985) Darrat (1986),
Xu (1996) Colombatto (1990), Ahmad and Kwan (1991) Afxentiou and
Serletis (1991), Bahmani-Oskooee et al. (1991), Ahmed et al. (2000) are
studies that all reject the export-led growth hypothesis (Anwer and Sampath, 1997:3). Studies analyzing the relationship between exports and
economic growth in Turkey found also different result. Rodrik (1995) studies
four countries (Korea, Taiwan, Chile and Turkey) and presents very briefly
Granger causality tests between the share of investment in GDP and the
share of exports plus imports in GDP. No causality could be detected for
either direction in Turkey. Yigidim and Kose (1997) studied variables for
the years 19801996 and found no causality between export and growth
but when they use variables in logarithmic form of first differences has
identified unidirectional causality.
Ozmen and Furtun (1997) tested the export-led growth for the years of
19701995 in Turkey by using time series and concluded the long-term
co-integration between the two variables is significant. Ozmen et al. (1999)
used the quarterly data during the period 1983:11997:2. They have tested
the causality issue between export and output by applying the standard
Granger (1969) causality method. The results show unidirectional causality
from export to output under the consideration period. Simsek (2003) found
in his study bi-directional causality running from growth to export but
rejected export-led growth hypothesis. Alici and Ucal (2003) employed Toda
and Yamamoto (1995) causality technique to test the hypothesis using
quarterly data 1987:12002:4. The results indicate uni-directional causality
running from export growth to output growth. Demirhan (2005) analyzed
the relationship between export and growth for the years of 19872004 and
he detected the result of the long-term relationship. Taban and Aktar (2005)
concluded that the existence of uni-directional causality between two variables
for the years of 19802003 but no sign of long-term relation. Demirhan
and Akcay (2005) made the study of the relationship between export and
growth. They found granger causality running from economic growth to
export growth. Karagl and Serel (2005) found bi-directional causality relation
running from GDP to export for the period of 19552002. Halcoglu (2007)
seeks to validity of the export-led growth hypothesis using quarterly data
from 1980 to 2005 and found suggest unidirectional causation from exports
to industrial production. Taban and Aktar (2008) found that the existence of
72

bi-directional causality between two variables for the years of 19802007.

Aktas (2009) found no granger causality from export and growth for the
period of 19962006. Ozturk and Acaravci (2010) support the export-led
growth hypothesis for Turkey and that Granger causal flow is unidirectional
from real exports to real GDP by using quarterly data from 1989 to 2006.
3. Methodology, Model and Data Set
In this study, the validity of export-led growth in Turkey was examined by
using Johansen cointegration analysis. Initially, both the ADF and Philips
Perron unit root test were employed to examine stationary whether the
variables present a unit root. Later, the Johansen co-integration method was
applied to check if there is co-integrating relationships exist among export
and growth.
This study uses quarterly series of Real Gross Domestic Product (Y),
and Exports (X) and in Turkey for the period of 2002Q12011Q3 drawn
from the database of Turkish Republic Central Bank and State Planning
Organization. Export and GDP data in a logarithm form were transformed
into TL by using average dollar sale exchange rate.
Based on the data collected from 2002 to 2011, this paper explores the
short-term and long-term relationship between export (LX) and economic
growth (LY) by applying co-integration analysis and Granger causality test.
3.1 Unit Root Test
It has become a standard practice in econometric analysis to examine the
time series properties of the variables in the model. We use the Augmented
Dickey Fuller (1979) and Philips-Perron (1988) test for the existence of unit
roots and identify the order of integration for each variable. The results of
the ADF and PP tests for stationary properties of the variables are presented
in Table 1.
Table 1 Results of the ADF and PP unit roots tests
Augmented Dicky-Fuller Test
Philips-Perron Test
(ADF test)
(PP test)
First
First
Level Form
Level Form
Difference
Difference
-1,5005
-3,76*
-1,73
-3,80*
LY
-1.5456
-6,55*
-0,815
-6,66*
LX
Significant Level
Critical Values
%1
-3,60
-3,61
-2,63
-2,63
%5
-2,94
-2,94
-1,95
-1,95
%10
-2,60
-2,60
-1,61
-1,61
Note: *Denotes for 5% significance level, **Denotes for 1% significance level.

73

The Table 1 above shows that two variables were not stationary in levels.
This can be seen by comparing the observed values (in absolute terms) of
the test statistics with the critical values (also in absolute terms) of the test
statistics at the 1%, 5% and 10% level of significance.
The results of the first differenced variables show that the ADF and PP
test statistics for two variables are greater than critical values at 1%, 5%,
10% levels and the two variables are stationary after differenced, suggesting that two variables are integrated of order I(1).
3.2. Co-integration Test
In this study, the maximum likelihood estimation method of Johansen and
Juselius (1990) is employed to test for cointegration. The maximum likelihood procedure of Johansen (1988) and Johansen and Juselius (1990)
method to cointegrated models provides an efficient procedure for the
estimation of cointegrated systems. The main advantage of the Johansen
Maximum Likelihood (ML) method is that it enables one to determine the
number of existing cointegrating (i.e. long-run) relationships among the
variables in hand (Utkulu, 1997: 43).
VAR and the corresponding VECM model is defined as follows:
Xt = c + x1Xt-1 +x2Xt-2 + xpXt-p + +t
(1)
where = Real GDP (Y) and export (X). And also, c is a constant term
(3x1 in our case), p = nxn matrices of autoregressive coefficients for i = 1,
2p, it must be presented a reparametrisation of equation (1) in order to
distinguish between stationary by linear combinations and differencing.
Thus the system equation in (1) can be rewritten as follows:
t = c + 1 t-1 + 2 t-2 + p-1 t-p+1 + t-p+
where i = -(I 1.i ) (i = 1, p-1) and = -(I 1 - - p)

(2)
(3)

We will first examine the matrix to detect the existence of cointegrating

relations among the X variables. If rank () = r < n, then there are matrices
and of dimension nxr such that H0: = and there are r cointegrating relations among the elements of Xt is accepted as a matrix of
cointegration vectors and provides the property that elements in Xt are
stationary even though Xt is non-stationary.
The Johansen maximum likelihood approach Johansen (1988) and
Johansen and Juselius (1990) is used to test the cointegration in the second
step if the results proves cointegration the either unidirectional or bidirectional then Granger causality must exist, at least in the I (0) variables
(Karagol, et al., 2006:369). The Johansen co-integration results based on
74

Johansen maximum likelihood approach employing both maximum eigenvalue and trace statistic for VAR=1 can be seen in table-2. We note the
results of cointegration analysis obtained by the estimation (a) with the lag
length k=1. We recognize a single cointegrating vector for the system by
rejecting reject the null of no cointegration (r=0) but not the null of at most
one cointegrating vector (r=1) according to the maximal eigenvalue ( max)
and trace eigenvalue ( trace) statistics. The eigenvectors presented in
Table 2 are normalized by LY.
Table 2 Johansen and Juselius Cointegration Test
Series: LY, LX
r
Trace
Critical
Max-Eigen
Critical
Statistics
Value
Statistic
Value
5%
5%
r=0
23.89480(2)
20.26184 18.23742(2) 11.22480
r1
9.164546
9.686700 9.164546
9.686700
Normalized cointegration equation: LY = 0.966364 LX
** Denotes for 5% significance level.

Result

Cointegrated

The optimum lag-lengths are indicated within parentheses and they are
determined by the Schwarz criterion.
The aim of an impulse response function is to identify the effect of a
one-time shock to one of the innovations on current and future values of
the endogenous variables (Root and Lien, 2003). A shock to the i-th variable
not only directly affects the i-th variable but is also transmitted to all of the
other endogenous variables through the dynamic (lag) structure of the VAR.
Figure 1 Impulse response functions one standard deviation shock in LY

Figure 1 depicts the impulse responses of GDP to an export shock. It is

clear from figure above that the response of GDP is positive for 4 years
75

however from the rest of the years this shock negatively affects LY and
the effect of the shock is permanent.
Figure 2 Impulse response functions one standard deviation shock in LX

Figure 2 shows that the effects of one standard deviation shock given to the
GNP (LY) on export (LX). We can say that when one standard deviation
shock is given to the LY, this shock affect on LX four year negatively
however from the five year this shock positively affects LX and the effect
of the shock is permanent.
3.3 Granger Causality Tests
If the variables are cointegrated, a VECM should be estimated rather than
a VAR as in a standard Granger causality test Granger (1988). Therefore,
we estimate a VECM for the Granger causality test because we found a
cointegration relationship between export and GDP.
4
(5)
where LX and LY refer to export and GDP respectively.
As we showed the series to be cointegrated, there must be either unidirectional or bidirectional Granger causality, since at least one of the error
correction terms (ECT) is significantly nonzero by the definition of cointegration. First, by testing for all d yi equals 0 in equation (4) or for all
Wzi equals 0 in equation (5), we evaluate Granger weak causality. This can
be implemented using a Standard Wald test. Masih and Masih (1996) and
Asafu-Adjaye (2000) interpreted the weak Granger causality as short run
76

causality in the sense that the dependent variable responds only to shortterm shocks to the stochastic environment.
The other possible causality is added the ECT in equation (4) and (5).
The coefficients on the ECT represent how fast deviations from the long run
equilibrium are eliminated following changes in each variable. In order to
test Granger causality, we will investigate whether the two sources of
causation are jointly significant. This can be done by testing the joint hypotheses that all d yi and 1(ECT) are jointly zero in equation (4) or all Wzi
and 2(ECT) are jointly zero (0) in equation (5). This is referred to as a
strong Granger causality test. The joint test indicates which variable(s)
bear the burden of short run adjustment to reestablish long run equilibrium,
following a shock to the system Asafu-Adjaye (2000).
Table 3 Granger Causality Tests
Dependent
Source of Causation (Independent Variable)
Variable
Short Run-Causality
Long Run-Causality
LY
LX
ECT/LY
ECT/LX
4.64**
----------------1.27**
LY

3.25**
LX

The appropriate lag lengths are chosen using Schwartzs Information Criteria (AIC).
* Denotes for 5% significance level.
** Denotes for 1% significance level.

As can be seen from the Table 3, F statistics, which are applied the lagged
coefficients of X and Y are all jointly significant at the 5% and 1%
levels, respectively. We conclude that there is a uni-directional short run
causal relationship between the variables from export to economic growth.
We cannot reject the null hypotheses that the coefficients on the ECTs and
the interaction terms are jointly zero in LY equation while we can reject the
null hypotheses that the coefficient on the ECT and the interaction terms
are jointly zero in the LX equation. The coefficients of the ECTs in the LX
equation are significant at the 1% level. So we found bi-directional longrun causality between export and GDP using Wald test.
In summary, Granger causality test results indicate that there is a
unidirectional causality relationship between export growth and real GDP
growth in short run and but bidirectional in the long run in Turkey for the
period 20022011.
4. Result
This paper examined the causal relationship between export and GDP for
Turkey over the period 20022011 using a bivariate model of GDP and
77

export. To test Granger causality, we employed a VECM instead of a VAR

model because we found strong evidence that the variables are cointegrated and we wanted to study the short run relationship as well as the long
run dynamics. Our test results unveil bidirectional long term causality and
unidirectional short term causality between export and growth of Turkey.
When we compare our results with those of studies on Turkey mentioned
in literature review, we have obtained similar results with zmen et al.,
(1999), Alc and Ucal (2003), ztrk and Acaravc (2010) have showed
unidirectional causality from export to growth. On the other hand, the other
studies conducted by Doanlar and Fisunolu (1999), and Taban and Aktar
(2008), which just found bidirectional causality in the long-run.
REFERENCES
Aktas, Cengiz (2009), Trkiyenin hracat, thalat Ve Ekonomik Byme
Arasndaki Nedensellik Analizi, Kocaeli niversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstits
Dergisi 18(2): 3547.
Anwer, M.S. and Sampath, R.K. (1997), Exports and Economic Growth,
Western Agricultural Economics Association, Selected Papers of the 1997 Annual
Meeting, July 1316, Reno/Sparks, Nevada, 118, http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgibin/view.pl. (23.02.2011)
Arslan, Yigidim and Kose Nezir (1997), hracat ve Ekonomik Byme Arasndaki liki, thalatn Rol: Trkiye rnei: 19801996 Ekonomik Yaklam 26:
185.
Asaufa-Adjaye, J. (2000), The Relationship between Energy Consumption,
Energy Prices and Economic Growth: Time Series Evidence from Asian Developing Countries, Energy Economics 22: 615625.
Boratav, Korkut ve Yeldan, Erin (January 2002), Turkey, 19802000: Financial Liberalization, Macroeconomic (In)Stability and Patterns of Distribution, 4
http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~yeldane/B&YCEPA2002.PDF (01.06.2003)
Demirhan, E. and Akcay, S. (2005), hracat Art ve Ekonomik Byme
Arasndaki Nedensellik likisi: Seilmi MENA lkeleri in Ampirik Kant,
ktisat, letme ve Finans, 124131.
Doanlar, M. and Fisunolu M. (1999), Causality between Exports and Economic
Growth in Asian Countries, Yap Kredi Economic Review 10(11): 311.
Dickey, D. and Fuller, W. (1979), Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root, Journal of American Statistical Association
74: 427431.
Engel, R.F. and Granger, C.W.J. (1987), Co-integration and Error Correction
Representation, Estimation and Testing, Econometrica 55(2): 251276.
Felipe, Jesus (2010), Inclusive Growth, Full Employment and Structural
Change, Implications and Policies for Developing Asia, 2nd edn. London: Anthem
Press.
Granger, C.W.J. (1988), Some Recent Developments in a Concept of Causality,
Journal of Econometrics 39: 199211.
78

Halicioglu, F. (2007), A Multivariate Causality Analysis of Export and Growth

for Turkey, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute, Working Papers, No
5, Brussels.
Hirway, Indira (1998), Paradigms of Development: Issues in Industrial Policy
in India, Working Paper No 22, QEH Working Paper Series, 139.
Jayanthakumaran, K. (2000), Industrialization: Import Substitution to Export
Promotion, Working Paper No 9, University of Wollongong, NSW, 132.
Johansen, S. (1988), Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors, Journal
of Economic Dynamics and Control 12 (2/3): 231254.
Johansen, S. and Juselius, K. (1990), Maximum Likelihood Estimation and
Inference on Cointegration With Applications to the Demand for Money, Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 52(2): 169210.
Karagol, E. and Serel, A. (2005), Trkiyede hracat ve GSMH Arasndaki
likinin Kointegrasyon Yntemiyle ncelenmesi, ..ktisat Fakltesi Sosyal Siyaset
Konferanslar Dergisi 50.
Karagol, E., Erbaykal, E., Ertugrul, H.M. (2006), Energy Consumption and
Industrial Production in Turkey: A Multivariate Cointegration Analysis, International
Conference on Economics, Ankara, 1113 September, 366372.
Kimura, Fukunari (2002), Development Strategies for Economies under Globalization: Southeast Asia as a New Development Model, IDE Workshop on
Reexamination of Development Policies, Keio University, Tokyo, 129.
Kizilca, F. Kemal and Ozcan, Kvlcm Metin (2008), How Did Export-Led
Growth Strategy Work in the Turkish Case? The Experience of Manufacturing Sector
after 1980, The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 2(1): 137160.
Onis, Ziya and Webb, Steven B. (1992), Political Economy of Policy Reform
in Turkey in the 1980s, Washington, D.C.: CED, World Bank, 166.
Onis, Ziya (2009), Crises and Transformations in Turkish Political Economy,
Turkish Policy Quarterly 9(3): 4561.
Ozmen, E. and Fortun, G., (1998), Export-led Growth Hypothesis and the
Turkish Data: An Empirical Investigation, Metu Studies in Development 25: 491
503.
zmen, A, Ozer, M. and Turkyilmaz, S. (1999), Trkiyede hracat ve Ekonomik Byme Arasndaki Nedensellie likin Bir Uygulama Denemesi, Orhan
Ouza Armaan, Marmara niversitesi Yayn, No 640: 379392.
Ozturk, Ilhan and Acaravci Irfan (2010), Testing the Export-led Growth Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence from Turkey, The Journal of Developing Areas 44(1):
245254.
Palley, T. (2003), Export-led Growth: Evidence of Developing Country Crowding-out, in P. Arestis, M. Baddeley, and J. McCombie (eds.), Globalisation, Regionalism and Economic Activity. Cheltenham, UK-Northampton: Edward Elgar, 17597.
Phillips, P.C.B. and Perron, P. (1988), Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series
Regression, Biomtrika 75(2): 336346.
Rodrik, D. (1995), Trade Strategy, Investment and Exports: Another Look at
East Asia, Pacific Economic Review 2(1): 124.
Root, T. H., and Lien, D. (2003), Impulse Responses in a Threshold Cointegrated System: The Case of Natural Gas Markets, Applied Financial Economics
13: 2335.
79

Simsek, M. (2003), hracata Dayal-Byme Hipotezinin Trkiye Ekonomisi

Verileri le Analizi, 19602002, D.E....B.F. Dergisi 18(2): 4363.
Taban, S. and Aktar, I. (2005), An Empirical Examination of the Export-Led
Growth Hypothesis in Turkey, Selected Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Business, Management and Economics, Vol. 1, Yaar University,
1619 June, eme-zmir.
Taban, S. and Aktar, I. (2008), An Empirical Examination of the Export-Led
Growth Hypothesis in Turkey, Journal of Yasar University 3(11): 15351551.
Taymaz, Erol and Yilmaz, Kamil (2007), Integration with the Global Economy:
The Case of Turkish Automobile and Consumer Electronics Industries, TSADKo niversitesi Ekonomik Aratrmalar Forumu. alma Makaleleri 0801, 160.
Thesen, Wong Hock (2007), Exports, Domestic Demand and Economic Growth:
Some Empirical Evidence of the Middle East Countries, Journal of Economic
Cooperation 28(2): 5758.
Turkish Republic Central Bank, Electronic Data Delivery System, http://www.
tcmb.gov.tr, [Accessed 03.01.2012].
Utkulu, Utku (1997), How to Estimate Long-run Relationships in Economics:
An Overview of Recent Approaches, DE BF Dergisi 12(2): 3948.
Utkulu, Utku, and Durmus, Ozdemir (2005), Does Trade Liberalization Cause
a Long Run Economic Growth in Turkey? Economics of Planning 37(9): 245266.
Fatih Mangir

80

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.