Next Article in Journal
The Rental Prices of the Apartments under the New Tourist Environment: A Hedonic Price Model Applied to the Spanish Sun-and-Beach Destinations
Previous Article in Journal
Money and Pay-As-You-Go Pension
Article Menu

Export Article

Economies 2018, 6(2), 22; doi:10.3390/economies6020022

Article
The Relationship between Export and Growth: Panel Data Evidence from Turkish Sectors
Department of Economics, Nevsehir Haci Bektas Veli University, Nevsehir 50300, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 29 October 2017 / Accepted: 16 March 2018 / Published: 2 April 2018

Abstract

:
The aim of this study is to examine the impact of sectoral exports on economic growth in Turkey over the period 2000–2015. To this end, empirical models are estimated using panel data techniques in which quarterly data are gathered for eight sectors. Findings in the case of the pooled panel indicate the validity of the export-led growth hypothesis. Disaggregated evidences, on the other hand, reveal the validity of export-led growth hypothesis in the case of (i) agriculture and forestry; (ii) fishing; (iii) mining and quarrying; (iv) manufacturing; (v) electricity, gas and water supply; and (vi) wholesale and retail trade while it is found to be invalid in the case of (i) real estate, renting and business activities; and (ii) other community, social and personal service activities. The sectors that have the highest growth contributions are listed as follows: (i) agriculture and forestry; (ii) mining and quarrying; and (iii) manufacturing. Causality results also provide a strong support in favor of an export-led growth hypothesis for four sectors in addition to the feedback hypothesis which is valid for three sectors.
Keywords:
export; economic growth; export-led growth hypothesis; Turkey; panel data analysis
JEL Classification:
F11; O4

1. Introduction

Although the basis of the relationship between international trade and economic growth dates back to the Mercantilist period, the theoretical setting of this relationship has been proposed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo in line with international trade theories. The empirical studies have been the center of interest since the 1970s (Kravis 1970; Michaely 1977; Balassa 1978, 1981, 1982, 1985; Heller and Porter 1978; Krueger 1978; Williamson 1978; Fajana 1979; Tyler 1981; Feder 1982; Salvatore 1983; Kavoussi 1984; Jung and Marshall 1985; Ram 1985; Darrat 1986; Chow 1987; Hsiao 1987; Ram 1987; Bhagwati 1988).
From 1923 when the Republic was declared up to date, different foreign trade policies such as liberal or protectionist have been applied in Turkey according to the necessities of the period. Implementation of export-oriented growth policy with the 24 January 1980 Decisions was a milestone in Turkey. Export promotion policies in this period have largely been aimed at increasing exports of the manufacturing sector. While the sector which had the largest share in total exports in 1980 was the agricultural sector, the share of the manufacturing sector has started to increase since 1981. Over the analysis period (2000–2015), manufacturing, mining and quarrying, agriculture and forestry, wholesale and retail trade sectors have the highest export values as a share of total exports. On the other hand, sectors of real estate, renting and business activities and other community, social and personal service activities have the lowest shares. Sustainable economic growth is seen as a growth based on net export within the current global and local conditions in Turkey. Accordingly, “rebalancing in the economy” policies have been implemented in the Turkish economy since 2012 in order to ensure growth based on net export (TEA 2016, p. 30). In this context, a number of empirical studies addressing the sample of Turkey have been conducted in order to assess whether the export-based growth strategy has achieved its goal since 1980. When these studies are examined, it is seen that a large part of the work is at the macro level while the number of studies dealing with the relationship at the micro (sectoral) level is rather limited. Macro-scale studies commonly measure the aggregated impact; the differentiated impact of each sector with different export volumes cannot be measured. Therefore, the problem of aggregation bias may arise, in which the findings might be inconsistent.
Given the aforementioned motivation1, the aim of this study is to examine the impact of sectoral exports on economic growth in Turkey over the period 2000:Q1–2015:Q4 within the panel data framework. For this purpose, two hypotheses have been proposed accordingly. The first one is that “exports will affect growth in the micro-base as well as in the macro-base”. As these effects may change with respect to the export and production potential of the concerned sector, the second hypothesis is that “sectors that increase export volume more will contribute to economic growth more”. To test these hypotheses, the impact of eight different sectors’ export volumes on economic growth is analyzed using quarterly data covering the period 2000–2015 by employing panel time series estimator.
The rest of the study is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews relevant literature, Section 3 describes model and data, Section 4 presents methods and results, and Section 5 concludes.

2. Literature Survey

As stated in the introduction section, most of the studies focus on the nexus between export and economic growth at the aggregate level. In addition to the regression approach, on the other hand, causality approaches are used in most of the macro level studies as well. Table 1 summarizes these studies.
Unlike the studies at the aggregated level, studies at the disaggregate level are relatively limited. Table 2 reviews sectoral level studies based on the causality approach.
In the case of Turkey there are a limited number of studies using disaggregated data. In addition, the scope of the sectors discussed by the aforementioned literature is very scarce. Sectoral relationships on the export-led growth hypothesis in the case of Turkey are mostly investigated through causality approaches. Table 3 reviews sectoral level studies in the case of Turkey.
While studies are investigated in export-growth literature employing sectoral export data, two deficiencies are remarked: (i) the sectors covered by the sectoral studies are rather narrow in terms of sectors (ii) most of the sectoral studies use causality approaches2. This situation is still valid in studies conducted for Turkey. In this context, the main motivation of this study is to test the validity of the export led growth hypothesis using sectoral data for Turkey using panel regression approaches. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study which investigates export-growth nexus with comprehensive sectoral data for Turkey employing this method.

3. Model and Data

In line with the theory which extended Neoclassical production function with foreign trade and empirical literature (see, for example: Feder 1982; Baldwin 1992; Ben-David and Loewy 2003; Gundlach 2007; Parida and Sahoo 2007; Awokuse 2008; Kristjanpoller and Olson 2014), economic growth (y) is defined as a function of physical capital (k), labour (l) and exports (x):
y = f ( k , l , x )
In Equation (1), the growth, the capital and the labor are taken in aggregate forms3. The export consists of eight different sectors namely (i) agriculture and forestry; (ii) fishing; (iii) mining and quarrying; (iv) manufacturing industry; (v) electricity, gas and water supply; (vi) wholesale and retail trade; (vii) real estate, renting and business activities and (viii) other social and personal services. Function in Equation (1) can be written in panel data format as the following:
y i , t = β 1 i k i t + β 2 i l i t + β 3 i x i t + v i + ε i t
where i and t represents sectors (i = 1, …, 8) and time period (t = 2000:Q1, …, 2015:Q4), respectively. In addition, v and є represents sector-specific variable and random error term, respectively.
To examine the effect of sectoral export on economic growth, we focus on the 2000:Q1–2015:Q4 period. Growth variable is represented using GDP by expenditure approach at 1998 fixed prices. Gross fixed capital formation is used as fixed capital at 1998 fixed prices according to the expenditure method. The labor variable is measured as the number of workers over the age of 15. Export variable comprises of sectoral export data according to ISIC. 3. All data in the model were obtained from the Turkish Statistical Agency database (http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist). In addition, all variables are modeled as natural logarithms. This transformation ensures that the coefficients obtained after parameter estimation can be interpreted as elasticities.

4. Methods and Findings

4.1. Unit Root Analysis

In econometric applications, it is necessary to investigate whether the series contain unit root before testing any relation between the variables in the model. Granger and Newbold (1974) point out that the results obtained using nonstationary variables might be biased and inconsistent. For this reason, determining the degree of integration of the variables in the model is an extremely important step.
Widely used unit root tests in panel data econometrics are LLC (Levin et al. 2002) and IPS (Im et al. 2003) tests. The alternative “HA: serial unit does not contain root (serial is stable)” is tested against the null hypothesis “H0: serial unit contains root (series is not stable)”. The mathematical notation of the LCC test with a test statistic with standard normal distribution is as follows:
Δ y i , t = ρ * y i , t 1 + L = 1 ρ δ i L Δ y i , t L + z i , t γ + ε i , t
The IPS test also considers the same hypothesis with the LLC test. The mathematical notation of the IPS test is as follows:
Δ y i , t = ρ * y i , t 1 + L = 1 ρ i δ i L Δ y i , t L + z i , t γ + ε i , t
Table 4 shows the results of LLC and IPS panel unit root tests for variables in the system. The null hypothesis indicating unit root cannot be rejected at the level of 10% significance. Once we look at the first differences, the null hypothesis is rejected at the level of 1% significance. For capital variable, LLC and IPS tests yield different results. The LLC test indicates that the null hypothesis at the level of the capital variable may be rejected at the level of 5% significance, whereas the IPS test shows that the null hypothesis can only be rejected if the first variance of the capital variable is taken. It can be seen that the null hypothesis for the export variable can be rejected at 1% significance level in both the LLC and IPS test results. The export variable is also stationary at 1% significance level.

4.2. Regression Analysis: Panel Data Approach

To tackle the aggregation bias problem in panel data econometrics, parameter estimation should be done using heterogeneous panel time series estimators. One of the biggest advantages of heterogeneous panel time series estimators is that it is not important whether the variables in the model be integrated at I (0) or I (1), and therefore it is not necessary to investigate whether the variables are cointegrated (see, for example: Chudik et al. 2011; Kapetanios et al. 2011; Pesaran and Tosetti 2011; Sadorsky 2014). In the panel data econometrics, mean group estimators are used in the recently developed heterogeneous coefficient time series approach. These estimators are: Mean Group (MG) estimator developed by Pesaran and Smith (1995), Estimator of Common Correlated Effects Mean Group (CCEMG) developed by Pesaran (2006) and Augmented Mean Group (AMG) estimators developed by (Eberhardt and Bond 2009; Eberhardt and Teal 2010; Bond and Eberhardt 2013). Eberhardt (2012), however, suggests that CCEMG and AMG predictors are more suitable for macro panels. Since our study is a micro panel, we estimate the parameters in Equation (2) with the MG estimator developed by Pesaran and Smith (1995). The relation presented in Equation (2) is a static panel data model. In this study, Equation (5), which is the dynamic version of Equation (2), will be estimated. The reason that dynamic models are more useful than static models is that the coefficients obtained from dynamic models are used to calculate short and long run elasticities and these elasticities provide useful information in policy implication.
y i , t = β 1 i y i t 1 + β 2 i k i t + β 3 i l i t + β 4 i x i t + v i + e i t
Table 5 shows the MG estimator results for both the pooled panel and the sectors. In the pooled panel, the lagged growth coefficient was estimated at 0.270 and is significant at 1% level. In the pooled panel, coefficients for capital, labor and export variables are found respectively 0.409, 0.607 and 0.041. Also, they are significant at 1% level. In the agriculture and forestry sector, all of the lagged growth, capital, labor and export coefficient are significant at 1% significance level and their coefficient have respectively 0.450, 0.385, 0.430 and 0.084 values. For the fishery sector, lagged growth, capital, labor and export variables are estimated respectively as 0.263; 0.427; 0.689 and 0.022. Also, all the coefficients are significant at the 1% level. Similarly, all variables in the manufacturing industry are significant at the 1% significance level. In this sector the lagged growth rate, capital, labor and export coefficients are respectively calculated as 0.291, 0.366, 0.516 and 0.072. The coefficients for lagged growth, capital, labor and export variables which are significant at 1% level in electricity, gas and water sector are estimated as 0.217, 0.433, 0.799 and 0.018, respectively. The lagged growth, capital and labor coefficients, which are significant at the 1% significance level for the wholesale and retail trade sectors, are calculated as 0.237, 0.420 and 0.648, respectively. The export coefficient in this sector is estimated at 0.035, which are significant at the level of 10%. The lagged growth, capital and labor coefficients for real estate, renting and business activities sector are estimated at 0.220, 0.462 and 0.738, respectively which are significant at the 1% significance level. Export coefficient is estimated at 0.004 and insignificant even at the 10% level. In other community, social and personal service activities sector, the lagged growth, capital, labor coefficients are estimated 0.200, 0.471 and 0.691, respectively which are significant at the level of 1%. The coefficient for the export variable is 0.008, which is insignificant at the 10% level.
Short and long-term elasticities can be calculated using the findings obtained from the MG estimator. Accordingly, the coefficients obtained from the MG estimator in Table 5 can be interpreted as direct short-term elasticities. Long run elasticities can also be calculated from the data in the table. Table 6 reflects the short and long-term growth elasticities. Capital elasticity in the short term varies between 0.308 and 0.471. In the pooled panel, the short run capital elasticity is 0.409. This finding reveals that as long as the capital ratio increases, growth will also increase consistent with the Neoclassical production function, Learning by Doing Model by Arrow (1962), Human Capital Model by Lucas (1988) and R & D Growth Model by Rivera-Batiz and Romer (1991). Moreover, while the sector with the greatest capital elasticity in the short term is the other community, social and personal service activities sector, the mining and the quarrying sector has the lowest. Long-run capital elasticity varies between 0.427 and 0.700. In the pooled panel, the long-run capital elasticity is calculated as 0.560. This finding, in line with the theoretical and empirical literature, implies that increases in capital inputs will increase growth in the long run. In addition, while the sector with the greatest capital elasticity in the long run is the agriculture and forestry sector, the sector with the lowest elasticity is mining and quarrying. According to these results, mining and quarrying is the sector with the lowest capital elasticity in both the short and long term. The main reason for this situation is that the production in this sector is largely dependent to naturel resources rather than inputs such as labor and capital. An increase in capital in the personal and social services sector, which is highly sensitive to capital, increases the growth in the short term more than in other sectors. In the long run, an increase in capital in the agriculture and forestry sector contributes to the growth more.
According to Table 6, the short-run elasticity of labor varies between 0.348 and 0.799. In the pooled panel the short-term capital elasticity is 0.607. This finding is consistent with Neoclassical production function. This finding reveals that as long as the labor ratio increases, growth will also increase. This finding is consistent with Learning by Doing Model by Arrow (1962), Human Capital Model by Lucas (1988), R & D Growth Model by Rivera-Batiz and Romer (1991), Neoclassical production function. Moreover, while the sector with the greatest labor elasticity in the short-term growth is the electricity, gas and water sector, the mining and the quarrying sector has been the least. Long-run labor elasticity varies between 0.482 and 1.020. In pooled panel, long run labor elasticity is calculated as 0.831. This finding, in line with the theory and the empirical literature, indicates that in the long run the increases in labor input will increase growth. Moreover, the sector with the greatest amount of labor elasticity in the long run is the electricity, gas and water supply sector; the mining and quarrying sector has been the least. The increase in the labor force in the electricity, gas and water supply sector is the biggest contributor to growth. In the case of capital, the sector with the least capital elasticity in both the short and long term has been mining and quarrying.
The empirical evidence that exports positively affect economic growth in Turkey is provided by the MG estimator for the pooled panel. This finding suggests that export led growth hypothesis is valid in the Turkish economy at the macro level. Accordingly, the export elasticity of growth in Turkey in the short term was calculated as 0.041, which indicates that the 1% increase in exports will increase the growth by 0.041%. The sectoral export elasticity of growth in the short-term is calculated as 0.084 in the agriculture and forestry sector, 0.022 in the fishery sector, 0.084 in mining and quarrying, 0.072 in the manufacturing industry, 0.018 in electricity gas and water supply, and 0.035 in wholesale and retail trade. Even though export elasticity of growth in the real estate, rental and business sectors as well as other community, social and personal service activity sectors is positive, the estimated coefficients of the export variable are not statistically significant at 10% significance level in these sectors. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the growth in these two sectors is not sensitive to exports in the short term.

4.3. Cointegration

In panel data econometrics Pedroni’s (1999) cointegration test is the commonly used one. The procedure consists of seven statistics for the test of the null of no cointegration against the alternative of cointegration. Four out of seven statistics (panel v, panel rho, panel PP and panel ADF) pertain to the within dimension test; the remainder of the statistics (group rho, group PP and group ADF) pertain to the between dimension test.
Table 7 presents the results of the cointegration test. Both the results of within group and between group cointegration tests reveal the rejection of the null hypothesis indicating no cointegration. Therefore, we can conclude that the variables are cointegrated.

4.4. Causality

Standard causality tests do not provide cross sectional results in heterogeneous panel data models. Thus, Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) propose a simple non-causality test for testing Granger (1969) causality in heterogeneous panel data models, which is shown as follows:
y i t = α i + k = 1 K γ i ( k ) y i , t k + k = 1 K β i ( k ) x i , t k + ε i , t
where y and x represent growth and exports, respectively. The approach uses an average Wald and tests the null of homogeneous non-causality from exports to growth against the alternative of causality from exports to growth for at least one cross-section. Compared to traditional causality tests, this test has a great number of advantages, including, for example: (i) the test fits well even with smaller size in terms of time and cross-section dimension; (ii) the test depends on cross section average of Wald statistics without estimating any particular panel regression; (iii) the test fits well for unbalanced panels as well as for the panels with different lag order for each cross section.
Table 8 demonstrates the causality results of the Dumitrescu and Hurlin test4. Test results indicate unidirectional causality from export to economic growth for (i) agriculture and forestry; (ii) fishery; (iii) electricity, gas and water supply sectors and (iv) other community, social and personal service activities whereas unidirectional causality from growth to export is found in the case of mining and quarrying. In addition, causality findings show bidirectional in (i) manufacturing; (ii) wholesale and retail trade; and (iii) real estate, renting and business activities sectors.

5. Concluding Remarks

In this study, export-led growth hypothesis is analyzed at the micro-scale in Turkey. Two hypotheses have been proposed in this framework. The first is “exports will affect growth in the micro-base as well as in the macro-base”. As these effects may change with respect to the export and production potential of the relevant sector, the second hypothesis is “sectors that increase export volume more will contribute to economic growth more”. To test these hypotheses, the impact of eight different sectors’ export volumes on economic growth is analyzed using quarterly data covering the period 2000–2015 by employing the MG estimator.
Findings provide some useful information in terms of policy implications. Export incentive policies will contribute positively to economic growth. Although the largest share in the sectoral composition of exports belongs to the manufacturing industry, increases in export level in the agriculture and forestry, and mining and quarrying sectors enhance economic growth more than the manufacturing industry. Therefore, export promotion policies in the agriculture and mining sectors will have a larger effect on the growth than the effect created by the manufacturing industry. This finding is consistent with Khalafalla and Webb (2001), which has resulted in the primary export of goods having a greater impact on growth than manufacturing industry exports in Malaysia, which is a developing country like Turkey. This can be explained by the fact that the agriculture and mining sectors are the two main sectors that provide raw materials to the manufacturing industry. Therefore, the increase in production in these two sectors will contribute to the manufacturing industry, whose production is largely based on imported raw materials, due to the inadequacy of domestic resources. Import of energy is in the first place among imported raw materials. In particular, the incentives to evaluate the current potential of the mining and quarrying sector will increase mining production, especially energy production. Therefore, imports of intermediate goods in manufacturing industry will decrease.
Except for exports, the coefficients of the estimated control variables also provide some important data. For all sectors, the estimated coefficient on the labor variable is greater than that of capital variable. This finding reveals that the increases in labor input increase economic growth more than the increases in capital input. This finding is also confirmed for all sectors. This result is quite consistent with Alam (2003) and Cuerasma and Wörz (2005), in which the validity of Neo-classical origin-export led growth hypothesis is analyzed in Mexico and 45 developed and developing countries, respectively. Although the impact of labor on growth in Turkey is greater than the effect of capital on growth, technology (capital) intensive policies should be implemented rather than labor intensive policies. In this context, technology-intensive production with a higher added value will lead to a higher growth rate. In addition, findings from the MG estimator show that growth elasticity of labor is elastic in the electricity, gas and water supply sector. Further increases in the input of labor lead to an additional increase in the production level of this sector. This finding can be explained by the need for a large infrastructure in terms of distribution and storage activities of the electricity, gas and water sector. Infrastructure necessity of the sector is directly related to the construction sector which is labor intensive.
The findings indicate that growth contribution of the exports in real estate, renting and business activities sector and other community, social and personal service activities sector is very low. In fact, the impact of exports on growth in these sectors is generally statistically insignificant. The relative insignificance of both sectors in the sectoral export composition is likely to explain the finding.
Micro findings are consistent with Abu-Quarn and Abu-Bader (2004), Kurt and Terzi (2007), and Yaprakli (2007) who conclude that the export-led growth hypothesis is found to be valid in the manufacturing sector of Turkey. Moreover, in the manufacturing industry findings are consistent with Parida and Sahoo (2007), Ghatak et al. (1997), Herzer et al. (2006), Cuerasma and Wörz (2005), Cipamba (2012), Shakouri and Yazdi (2012), and Shafiullah et al. (2017) in the case of countries other than Turkey. In the case of the fishery sector, findings of this study have results consistent with those by Duc and Tram (2011) in Vietnam. In the case of the agriculture sector, findings are consistent with Hennebery and Khan (2000), who report validity of export led growth hypothesis in Pakistan, Uddin (2015), who confirm the export led growth hypothesis in Bangladesh, and Shafiullah et al. (2017), who examine Australia. In the case of the mining sector, results match Ciftcioglu and Nekhili (2005) who support validity export led growth hypothesis in Turkey, Cipamba (2012). who investigates South Africa, Shakouri and Yazdi (2012), who confirms validity of export led growth hypothesis in Iran, and Shafiullah et al. (2017), who validate validity of export led growth hypothesis in Australia.
Finally, empirical findings can be evaluated in terms of the aforementioned hypotheses. The findings verify the hypothesis that “exports will affect growth in micro-base as well as macro-base”. The hypothesis that “sectors that increase export volume more will contribute to economic growth more” is also confirmed to be in line with the empirical results.
In this study, Dumitrescu and Hurlin’s causality test is also employed. Test results indicate the validity of the export-led growth hypothesis for (i) agriculture and forestry; (ii) fishery; (iii) electricity, gas and water supply sectors and (iv) other community, social and personal service activities whereas growth-led export hypothesis is valid in the case of mining and quarrying. In addition, causality findings support the feedback hypothesis in (i) manufacturing; (ii) wholesale and retail trade; and (iii) real estate, renting and business activities sectors. The results based on different lag lengths show that causal hypotheses are sensitive to the lag specifications. Given these findings, this study underlines the importance of lag specification in determining the causality between exports and growth.
In the case of Turkey, the findings of the causality test are consistent with Akbulut and Terzi (2013) and Onder and Hatirli (2014) who confirm a bidirectional relationship between export and growth in the manufacturing industry.
Although the main motivation of the study depends on the estimation of the slope coefficients through the panel regression approach, we also employ causality for robustness purpose. Once the results obtained from two procedures are compared, the majority of the sectors produce consistent results. In the case of some sectors, however, this study reveals that findings might be volatile across the empirical approach.
It is possible to make some suggestions for the researchers who will work on similar issues in the future. First, this study analyzes the effects of sectoral exports on growth using a Neoclassical production function. Upcoming studies could analyze the effect of exports on growth by using internal growth models. Second, the analysis period can be divided into two sub-periods in order to see the impact of the 2008 financial crisis.

Acknowledgments

This paper is derived from a dissertation entitled “A New Approach to Export-Led Growth Hypothesis: A Sectoral Evidence from Turkish Economy” written by Ebru Topcu under the supervision of Professor Alper Aslan.

Author Contributions

Both authors contributed equally to the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Lag LengthSectorsx → yy → x
k = 1Agriculture and Forestry63.276 [0.00] ***0.825 [0.36]
Fishery20.908 [0.00] ***1.760 [0.18]
Mining and Quarrying1.474 [0.22]12.454 [0.00] ***
Manufacturing4.285 [0.03] **20.142 [0.00] ***
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply3.970 [0.04] **0.343 [0.55]
Wholesale and Retail Trade12.467 [0.00] ***3.560 [0.05] *
Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities8.901 [0.00] ***3.031 [0.08] *
Other Community, Social and Personal Service Activities5.903 [0.01] **0.845 [0.35]
k = 2Agriculture and Forestry59.793 [0.00] ***61.795 [0.00] ***
Fishery23.561 [0.00] ***30.171 [0.00] ***
Mining and Quarrying0.743 [0.68]16.398 [0.00] ***
Manufacturing3.534 [0.17]36.582 [0.00] ***
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply3.654 [0.16]2.527 [0.28]
Wholesale and Retail Trade14.240 [0.00] ***7.422 [0.02] **
Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities9.896 [0.00] ***3.033 [0.21]
Other Community, Social and Personal Service Activities6.637 [0.03] **0.844 [0.65]
k = 3Agriculture and Forestry37.357 [0.00] ***13.350 [0.00] ***
Fishery14.788 [0.00] ***5.708 [0.12]
Mining and Quarrying10.855 [0.01] **2.908 [0.40]
Manufacturing4.352 [0.22]1.732 [0.62]
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply8.807 [0.03] **1.188 [0.75]
Wholesale and Retail Trade12.398 [0.00] ***0.749 [0.86]
Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities11.971 [0.00] ***0.329 [0.95]
Other Community, Social and Personal Service Activities8.450 [0.03] **1.161 [0.76]
k = 4Agriculture and Forestry1.071 [0.89]10.886 [0.02] **
Fishery12.733 [0.01] **4.795 [0.30]
Mining and Quarrying8.350 [0.07] *1.598 [0.80]
Manufacturing6.641 [0.15]1.535 [0.82]
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply5.212 [0.26]1.522 [0.82]
Wholesale and Retail Trade11.653 [0.02] **0.617 [0.96]
Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities12.502 [0.01] **0.275 [0.99]
Other Community, Social and Personal Service Activities7.749 [0.10]1.312 [0.85]
Figures are reported using Wald statistics. Figures in the brackets are p-values. ***, ** and * represents levels of significance at %1, %5 and %10, respectively.

References

  1. Abu-Quarn, Aamer S., and Suleiman Abu-Bader. 2004. The validity of the ELG hypothesis in the MENA region: Cointegration and error correction model analysis. Applied Economics (Taylor & Francis Journals) 36: 1685–95. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akbulut, Seval, and Harun Terzi. 2013. Analysis based on export growth by sectors in Turkey (Türkiye’de ihracata dayalı büyümenin sektörler itibariyle analizi). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 3: 43–58. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alam, M. Imam. 2003. Manufactured exports, capital good imports, and economic growth: Experience of Mexico and Brazil. International Economic Journal 17: 85–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1962. The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic 29: 155–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Awokuse, Titus O. 2005. Export-led growth and the Japanese economy: Evidence from VAR and directed acyclic graphs. Applied Economics Letters 12: 849–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Awokuse, Titus O. 2008. Trade openness and economic growth: Is growth export-led or importled? Applied Economics 40: 161–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Awokuse, Titus O., and Dimitris K. Christopoulos. 2009. Nonlinear dynamics and the exports–output growth nexus. Economic Modelling 26: 184–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Balassa, Bela. 1978. Exports and economic growth: Further evidence. Journal of Development Economics 5: 181–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Balassa, Bela. 1981. The Newly Industrializing Countries in the World Economy. New York: Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Balassa, Bela. 1982. Development Strategies in Semi-Industrialized Economies. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Balassa, Bela. 1985. Exports, policy choices and economic growth in developing countries after the 1973 oil shock. Journal of Development Economics 18: 23–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baldwin, Richard E. 1992. Measurable dynamic gains from trade. Journal of Political Economy 100: 162–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ben-David, Dan, and Michael B. Loewy. 2003. Trade and the neoclassical growth model. Journal of Economic Integration 18: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bhagwati, Jagdish N. 1988. Export-promoting trade strategy: Issues and evidence. World Bank Research Observer 3: 27–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Biswal, Bagala, and Urvashi Dhawan. 1998. Export-led growth hypothesis: Cointegration and causality analysis for Taiwan. Applied Economics Letters 5: 699–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bond, Steve R., and Markus Eberhardt. 2013. Accounting for Unobserved Heterogeneity in Panel Time Series Models. Nuffield College, University of Oxford: Unpublished mimeo. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chow, Peter C. Y. 1987. Causality between export growth and industrial development: Empirical evidence from newly industrialized countries. Journal of Development Economics 28: 265–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chudik Alexander, M. Hashem Pesaran, and Elisa Tosetti. 2011. Weak and strong cross-section dependence and estimation of large panels. The Econometrics Journal 14: 45–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ciftcioglu, Serhan, and Ramzi Nekhili. 2005. New evidence for exports-led growth, tradables-led-growth, and manufacturing-led growth: Causality test results for Turkey. Latin American Journal of Economic Development 5: 135–42. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cipamba, Paul Cipamba WA. 2012. A Cointegration Analysis of Sectoral Export Performance and Economic Growth in South Africa. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cuerasma, Jesús Crespo, and Julia Wörz. 2005. On export composition and growth. Review of World Economics 141: 33–49. [Google Scholar]
  22. Darrat, Ali F. 1986. Trade and development: The Asian experience. Cato Journal 6: 695–99. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dhawan, Urvashi, and Bagala Biswal. 1999. Re-examining export-led growth hypothesis: A multivariate cointegration analysis for India. Applied Economics 31: 525–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Duc, Nguyen Minh, and Nguyen Anh Tram. 2011. Relationship between sectoral exports and economic growth-a time series econometric analysis for Vietnamese fishery sector 1997–2008. Available online: http://www2.hcmuaf.edu.vn/data/nmduc/VN%20fish%20export%20contribute%20to%20GDP%20submitted(1).pdf (accessed on 28 November 2016).
  25. Dumitrescu, Elena-Ivona, and Christophe Hurlin. 2012. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling 29: 1450–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Eberhardt, Markus. 2012. Estimating panel time-series models with heterogeneous slopes. Stata Journal 12: 61–71. [Google Scholar]
  27. Eberhardt, Markus, and Stephen Bond. 2009. Cross-Sectiondependence in Nonstationary Panel Models: A Novelestimator. Munich Personal RePEc Archive Working paper No. 17870, Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Munich, Germany. [Google Scholar]
  28. Eberhardt, Markus, and Francis Teal. 2010. Productivity Analysis in Global Manufacturing Production. Economics Series Working papers 515. Oxford: Department of Economics, University of Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ee, Chia Yee. 2016. Export-led growth hypothesis: Empirical evidence from selected Sub-Saharan African countries. Procedia Economics and Finance 35: 232–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fajana, Olufemi. 1979. Trade and growth: The Nigerian experience. World Development 7: 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Feder, Gershon. 1982. On exports and economic growth. Journal of Development Economics 12: 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ghatak, Subrata, Chris Milner, and Utku Utkulu. 1997. Exports, export composition and growth: Cointegration and causality evidence for Malaysia. Applied Economics 29: 213–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Granger, Clive. 1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross spectral methods. Econometrica 37: 424–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Granger, Clive, and Newbold Paul. 1974. Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics 2: 111–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gundlach, Erich. 2007. The Solow model in the empirics of growth and trade. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23: 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hatemi-J, Abdulnasser. 2002. Export performance and economic growth nexus in Japan: A bootstrap approach. Japan and the World Economy 14: 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hatemi-J, Abdulnasser, and Irandoust Manuchehr. 2000. Time-series evidence for Balassa’s export-led growth hypothesis. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 9: 355–65. [Google Scholar]
  38. Heller, Peter S., and Richard C. Porter. 1978. Exports and growth: An empirical re-investigation. Journal of Development Economics 5: 191–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hennebery, Shida R., and Muhammed E. Khan. 2000. An analysis of the linkage between agricultural exports and economic growth in Pakistan. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 10: 13–29. [Google Scholar]
  40. Herzer, Dierk, Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann, and Boriss Siliverstovs. 2006. Export-led growth in Chile: Assessing the role of export composition in productivity growth. The Developing Economies 43: 306–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hossain, Mohammad, and Neil D. Karunaratne. 2004. Exports and economic growth in Bangladesh: Has manufacturing exports become a new engine of export-led growth? The International Trade Journal 18: 303–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hsiao, Mei-chu W. 1987. Tests of causality and exogeneity between exports and economic growth: The case of Asian NICs. Journal of Economic Development 12: 143–59. [Google Scholar]
  43. Im, Kyung So, M. Hashem Pesaran, and Yongcheol Shin. 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics 115: 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jung, Woo S., and Peyton J. Marshall. 1985. Export growth and causality in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics 18: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kapetanios, George, Hashem M. Pesaran, and Takashi Yamagata. 2011. Panels with non-stationary multi factorerror structures. Journal of Econometrics 160: 326–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kavoussi, Rostam M. 1984. Export expansion and economic growth: Further empirical evidence. Journal of Development Economics 14: 241–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khalafalla, Khalid Yousif, and Alan J. Webb. 2001. Export-led growth and structural change: Evidence from Malaysia. Applied Economics 33: 1703–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kónya, Laszlo. 2004. Export-led growth, growth-driven export, both or none? Granger causality analysis on OECD countries. Applied Econometrics and International Development 4: 73–94. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kravis, Irving B. 1970. Trade as a handmaiden of growth: Similarities between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Economic Journal 80: 850–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kristjanpoller, R. Werner, and Josephine E. Olson. 2014. Economic Growth in Latin American Countries: Is It Based on Export-Led or Import-Led Growth? Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 50: 6–20. [Google Scholar]
  51. Krueger, Anne O. 1978. Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Liberalization Attempts and Consequences (Cambridge Balinger). Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 114: 834–36. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kurt, Serdar, and Harun Terzi. 2007. The relationship among foreign trade of manufacturing industry, productivity and economic growth (İmalat sanayi dış ticareti, verimlilik ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi). Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 21: 25–46. [Google Scholar]
  53. Levin, Andrew, Chien-Fu Lin, and Chia-ShangJames Chu. 2002. Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finitesample properties. Journal of Econometrics 108: 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lucas, Robert E. 1988. On the mechanics of the economic developments. Journal of Monetary Economics 22: 3–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Michaely, Michael. 1977. Exports and growth: An empirical investigation. Journal of Development Economics 4: 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Onder, Kubra, and Selim Adem Hatirli. 2014. Economic analysis of the relationship between manufacturing industry export and economic growth in Turkey (Türkiye’de imalat sanayi ihracatı ve büyüme ilişkisinin iktisadi analizi). Journal of Yasar University 9: 5851–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Parida, Puena C., and Pravakar Sahoo. 2007. Export-led growth in South Asia: A panel cointegration analysis. International Economic Journal 21: 155–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pedroni, Peter. 1999. Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61: 653–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pesaran, M. Hashem. 2006. Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactorerror structure. Econometrica 74: 967–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pesaran, M. Hashem, and Ron Smith. 1995. Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics 68: 79–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pesaran, M. Hashem, and Elisa Tosetti. 2011. Large panels with common factors and spatial correlation. Journal of Econometrics 161: 182–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ram, Rati. 1985. Exports and economic growth: Some additional evidence. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33: 415–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ram, Rati. 1987. Exports and economic growth in developing countries: Evidence from timeseries and cross-section data. Economic Development and Cultural Change 36: 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rivera-Batiz, Luis A., and Paul M. Romer. 1991. International Trade with Endogenous Technological Change. NBER Working Papers Series; Working paper No. 3594. Cambridge, MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sadorsky, Perry. 2014. The effect of urbanization on CO2 emissions in emerging economies. Energy Economics 41: 147–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sahoo, Auro Kumar, Dukhabandhu Sahoo, and Naresh Chandra Sahu. 2014. Mining export, industrial production and economic growth: A cointegration and causality analysis for India. Resources Policy 42: 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Salvatore, Dominick. 1983. A simultaneous equations model of trade and development with dynamic policy simulations. Kyklos 36: 66–90. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sandalcilar, Ali Rıza. 2012. A causality analysis of relationship among agricultural export, non-agricultural export and economic growth for Turkey (Türkiye’de tarımsal ihracat, tarım dışı ihracat ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkinin nedensellik analizi). Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi C49: 65–76. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sentsho, Joel. 2000. Export Revenue as a Determinant of Economic Growth: Evidence from Botswana. Department of Economics Research paper. Gaborone: University of Botswana, pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  70. Shafiullah, Muhammad, Saroja Selvanathan, and Athula Naranpanawa. 2017. The role of export composition in export-led growth in Australia and its regions. Economic Analysis and Policy 53: 62–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shakouri, Bahram, and Soheila Khoshnevis Yazdi. 2012. Granger causality relationship between mining exports and GDP growth in Iran. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 6: 429–35. [Google Scholar]
  72. Shan, Jordan, and Fiona Sun. 1998. On the export-led growth hypothesis: The econometric evidence from China. Applied Economics 30: 1055–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shan, Jordan, and Fiona Sun. 1999. Export-led growth and the US economy: Some further testing. Applied Economics Letters 6: 169–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sharma, Subhash C., Mary Norris, and Daniel Wai-wah Cheung. 1991. Exports and economic growth in industrialized countries. Applied Economics 23: 697–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sjarif, Indra Nurcahyo, Koji Kotani, and Ching-Yang Lin. 2011. Exports and economic growth in Indonesia’s fishery sub-sector: Cointegration and error-correction models. Economics&Management Series 16: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  76. Tang, Chor Foon, Yew Wah Lai, and Ilhan Ozturk. 2015. How stable is the export-led growth hypothesis? Evidence from Asia’s Four Little Dragons. Economic Modelling 44: 229–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Turkish Exporters Assembly (TEA). 2016. Economy and Foreign Trade Report. Available online: http://www.tim.org.tr/files/downloads/Raporlar/Tim_Ekonomi_Raporu_2016.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2016).
  78. Thornton, John. 1996. Cointegration, causality and export-led growth in Mexico. Economic Letters 50: 413–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Toyin, Megbowon Ebenezer. 2016. Causality relationship between agricultural exports and economic growth: Evidence from South Africa. Journal of Social Sciences 48: 129–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tyler, William G. 1981. Growth and export expansion in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics 9: 121–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Uddin, Mirza Md. Moyen. 2015. Causal relationship between agriculture, industry and services sector for GDP growth in Bangladesh: An econometric investigation. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development 8: 124–29. [Google Scholar]
  82. Williamson, Robert B. 1978. The role of exports and foreign capital in Latin American economic growth. Southern Economic Journal 45: 410–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yaprakli, Sevda. 2007. Causality between exports and economic growth: An econometric analysis on Turkey (İhracat ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki nedensellik: Türkiye üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz). ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi 34: 97–112. [Google Scholar]
  • 1The novelty of the study is also presented thoroughly at the end of the literature section.
  • 2See, Hennebery and Khan (2000); Sentsho (2000); Alam (2003); Hossain and Karunaratne (2004); Duc and Tram (2011) among others for the micro level studies using regression approach.
  • 3Since there is no sectoral data related to these variables, total values are used.
  • 4Table 8 reports the causality results only for the first lag. Testing the robustness of the results to different lag lengths, however, is very crucial especially with the quarterly data. Even though they are not reported herein, causality results with respect to four lags can be found in the Appendix.
Table 1. Aggregate Level.
Table 1. Aggregate Level.
Author (s)Country/CountriesPeriodMethodFindings
Sharma et al. (1991)Germany, Italy, Japan, USA and England1960–1987VARGermany and Japan;
Export ќ → Growth
Thornton (1996)Mexico1895–1992Cointegration and Granger CausalityExport → Growth (long run)
Shan and Sun (1998)China1987–1996CausalityExport ↔ Growth
Dhawan and Biswal (1999)India1961–1993VARExport → Growth (short run)
Shan and Sun (1999)USA-Toda and Yamamoto CausalityExport ↔ Growth
Hatemi-J and Irandoust (2000)Turkey, Greece Mexico, Ireland and Portugal-VARMexico and Ireland;
Export → Growth
Portugal:
Growth → Export
Greece and Turkey;
Export θ Growth
Hatemi-J (2002)Japan1960–1999Bootstrap ApproachExport ↔ Growth
Kónya (2004)25 OECD Countries1960–1997 (except Hungary, Korea and Mexico)Granger CausalityIceland, Ireland, Australia and Austria;
Export → Growth
The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Norway;
Export θ Growth
Canada, Japan, Korea, Finland, USA and Portugal;
Growth → Export
Awokuse (2005)Japan-VAR and DAGExport ↔ Growth
Awokuse and Christopoulos (2009)Canada, Italy, Japan, England and USA-STAR ModelCanada, Italy, England and USA;
Export → Growth
Italy and Japan;
Growth → Export
Tang et al. (2015)Asian’s Four Little Dragons (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan)-Johansen Cointegraiton and MWALD Causality TestsBivarate Model:
Hong Kong and Singapore;
Export → Growth
South Korea and Taiwan;
Growth ↔ Export
Trivariate model:
Export ↔ Growth (for all countries)
Ee (2016)Sub-Saharan Africa Countries (Botswana, Equatorial Guinea, Mauritius)1885–2014Panel CointegraitonExport → Growth
Note: → indicates unidirectional relationship, ↔ indicates bidirectional relationship, θ indicates no relationship.
Table 2. Disaggregate Level.
Table 2. Disaggregate Level.
AuthorCountry/CountriesPeriodMethodFindings
Ghatak et al. (1997)Malaysia1955–1990Granger CausalityManufacturing Export → Growth
Biswal and Dhawan (1998)Taiwan1960–1990Engle Granger Cointegration and Error Correction ModelGrowth → Manufacturing Export
Alam (2003)Mexico and Brazil1959–1990 (Mexico)ARDL-FMOLSManufacturing Export θ Growth
1955–1990 (Brazil)
Herzer et al. (2006)Chile1960–2001Granger CausalityManufacturing Export → Growth
Parida and Sahoo (2007)South Asia1980–2002Panel CointegrationManufacturing Export → Growth
Hennebery and Khan (2000)Pakistan-2SLS and OLS estimationAgricultural Export → Growth
Duc and Tram (2011)Vietnam1997–2008Vector Error CorrectionFishery Sector Export → Growth
Shakouri and Yazdi (2012)Iran1959–2008Cointegration and Granger CausalityMining Export → Growth
Cipamba (2012)South Africa1990–2011Cointegration and Granger CausalityManufacturing Export → Growth (long run)
Manufacturing and Mining Export → Growth (short run)
Sahoo et al. (2014)India1981–2010VECM Granger CausalityGrowth → Mining Export
Uddin (2015)Bangladesh1980–2013Cointegration and Granger CausalityAgricultural Export → Growth
Shafiullah et al. (2017)Australia1990:Q3–2013:Q2Granger CausalityLong Run;
Mining and Fuels export → Growth
Agriculture Export → Growth
Manufacturing Export → Growth
Other Sector Export → Growth
Sjarif et al. (2011)Indonesia1969–2005Cointegration and Error-Correction ModelFishery Sector Export ↔ Growth
Toyin (2016)South Africa1975–2012Granger CausalityAgricultural Export θ Growth
Note: → indicates unidirectional relationship, ↔ indicates bidirectional relationship, θ indicates no relationship.
Table 3. Disaggregate Level for Turkey.
Table 3. Disaggregate Level for Turkey.
AuthorCountryPeriodMethodFindings
Abu-Quarn and Abu-Bader (2004)Turkey-Granger CausalityManufacturing Export → Growth
Ciftcioglu and Nekhili (2005)Turkey1987:Q1–2004:Q1Cointegration and Granger CausalityMining Export → Growth
Kurt and Terzi (2007)Turkey1989:Q1–2003:Q4VAR ModelManufacturing Export → Growth
Yaprakli (2007)Turkey1970–2005Cointegration and Granger CausalityAgricultural and Mining Export ↔ Growth, Manufacturing Export → Growth
Sandalcilar (2012)Turkey1987–2007Panel Cointegration and CausalityAgricultural export θ Growth
Akbulut and Terzi (2013)Turkey1980–2010Granger CausalityGrowth → Agricultural export
Manufacturing Export ↔ Growth
Onder and Hatirli (2014)Turkey1994–2009Three Stage Least Squares MethodManufacturing Export ↔ Growth
Note: → indicates unidirectional relationship, ↔ indicates bidirectional relationship, θ indicates no relationship.
Table 4. Results of Panel Unit Root Test.
Table 4. Results of Panel Unit Root Test.
VariableLLCIPS
y2.0384.249
k−2.216 **5.531
l6.1906.750
x−5.012 ***−3.833 ***
y−90.646 ***−81.646 ***
k−10.036 ***−14.412 ***
l−16.187 ***−28.798 ***
Note: ∆ represents difference operator. Estimates include a constant. LLC Maximum lag length is set to 4 with respect to SIC. *** and ** represent levels of significance at 1% and 5%, respectively.
Table 5. Results of Mean Group (MG) Estimator.
Table 5. Results of Mean Group (MG) Estimator.
Cross Sectiony(−1)klx
Pooled Panel0.270 ***0.409 ***0.607 ***0.041 ***
Agriculture and Forestry0.450 ***0.385 ***0.430 ***0.084 ***
Fishery0.263 ***0.427 ***0.689 ***0.022 ***
Mining and Quarrying0.279 ***0.308 ***0.348 ***0.084 ***
Manufacturing0.291 ***0.366 ***0.516 ***0.072 ***
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply0.217 ***0.433 ***0.799 ***0.018 ***
Wholesale and Retail Trade0.237 ***0.420 ***0.648 ***0.035 *
Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities0.220 ***0.462 ***0.738 ***0.004
Other Community, Social and Personal Service Activities0.200 ***0.471 ***0.691 ***0.008
Note: Estimates consist constant term. *** and * represent levels of significance at 1% and 10%, respectively.
Table 6. Growth Elasticities.
Table 6. Growth Elasticities.
Cross SectionShort TermLong Term
klxklx
Pooled Panel0.4090.6070.0410.5600.8310.056
Agriculture and Forestry0.3850.4300.0840.7000.7810.152
Fishery0.4270.6890.0220.5790.9340.029
Mining and Quarrying0.3080.3480.0840.4270.4820.116
Manufacturing0.3660.5160.0720.5160.7270.101
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply0.4330.7990.0180.5531.0200.022
Wholesale and Retail Trade0.4200.6480.0350.5500.8490.045
Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities0.4620.7380.0040.5920.9460.005
Other Community, Social and Personal Service Activities0.4710.6910.0080.5880.8630.010
Table 7. Pedroni’s Cointegration Results.
Table 7. Pedroni’s Cointegration Results.
DimensionTestResult
Within group cointegration testsPanel-v2.498 [0.00] ***
Panel-rho−14.741 [0.00] ***
Panel-pp−14.540 [0.00] ***
Panel-adf−2.402 [0.00] ***
Between group cointegration testsGrup-rho−15.017 [0.00] ***
Grup-pp−17.335 [0.00] ***
Grup-adf−2.089 [0.01] **
The tests are carried out with 4 lags. Figures in the brackets are p-values. *** and ** represent levels of significance at 1% and 5%, respectively.
Table 8. Causality Results.
Table 8. Causality Results.
Sectorsx → yy → x
Agriculture and Forestry63.276 [0.00] ***0.825 [0.36]
Fishery20.908 [0.00] ***1.760 [0.18]
Mining and Quarrying1.474 [0.22]12.454 [0.00] ***
Manufacturing4.285 [0.03] **20.142 [0.00] ***
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply3.970 [0.04] **0.343 [0.55]
Wholesale and Retail Trade12.467 [0.00] ***3.560 [0.05] *
Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities8.901 [0.00] ***3.031 [0.08] *
Other Community, Social and Personal Service Activities5.903 [0.01] **0.845 [0.35]
Figures are reported using Wald statistics. Figures in the brackets are p-values. ***, ** and * represent levels of significance at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Economies EISSN 2227-7099 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top