SOSYAL AĞ ANALİZİ EĞİTİMİ - Hakkında

Accounting Business Cycles of an Emerging Market:
An Application to Turkey
Ceyhun Elgin
Deniz C
¸ i¸cek
Bogazici University
University of Minnesota
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
1 / 25
Question
What factors drive business cycle fluctuations in Turkey?
We are curious about the answer of this question because of both
theoretical and practical reasons:
Practically, we want to identify the business cycle fluctuations and their
sources in Turkey
Doing this might help us giving some policy recommendations.
On the theoretical side, we want to understand the economic
mechanism which leads to these cycles.
Once we can identify the dominant force behind these cycles, this will
give us the direction on which further research on the Turkish economy
has to be made.
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
2 / 25
Turkish vs. US Business Cycles
Figure 1
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE
Figure 2 2011
3 / 25
Literature
In the literature on the Turkish economy there aren’t many studies on
evaluating the growth performance of Turkey from a neoclassical
perspective, neither are there studies of business cycles.
Among the few examples, Altug, Filiztekin, and Pamuk (2008) study
the sources of the long-term economic growth in Turkey from 1880 to
2005 and find that that output growth in Turkey is primarily due to
capital accumulation, not due to the growth of TFP
On the other hand, Ismihan and Metin-Ozcan (2006) find that both
TFP and capital accumulation were both important sources of growth
over the sample period.
Cicek and Elgin (2010) find out evidence that TFP is the crucial
determinant to understand the evolution of output per capita in
Turkey
One should note that the primary focus in these studies was to find
the main factor affecting economic growth in Turkey. Our focus in
this paper will be to understand the factors causing the business cycles
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
4 / 25
BCA Procedure
To study the business cycles in the Turkish economy we borrow from
the Business Cycle Accounting (BCA) framework developed by Chari,
Kehoe, and McGrattan (2007a) by introducing time-varying wedges,
each representing different types of distortions or shocks, to an
otherwise standard one-sector neo-classical growth model.
Efficiency wedge
Labor wedge
Investment wedge
Government accounting wedge
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
5 / 25
BCA Procedure
Efficiency wedge stands for the total factor productivity and
input-financing frictions.
Credit frictions, capital or consumption taxes lead to the investment
wedge.
Labor wedge captures labor market frictions such as unionization or
sticky wages and monetary shocks.
Government accounting wedge captures trade shocks and frictions
and also shocks to government spending.
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
6 / 25
BCA Literature
This method of identifying the frictions in the economy using the
BCA framework drew increasing attention lately, in spite of some
criticisms against it. (See Christiano and Davis (2006) and Chari et.
al. (2007b) for a discussion about this.)
Examples:
Kobayashi and Inaba (2006) for the Japanese economy
Lama (2005) for Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.
Cavalcanti (2004) for Portugal
Gao (2007) for China
Kersting (2008) for UK
Simanovska and S¨
oderling (2008) for Chile.
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
7 / 25
The Model
Households maximize:
∞ X
X
β t πt (s t )U(ct (s t ), 1 − lt (s t ))Nt
t=0 s t
subject to the budget constraint,
Ct (s t )+(1+τxt (s t ))Xt (s t ) = rt (s t )Kt (s t−1 )+(1−τlt (s t ))wt (s t )Lt (s t )+Tt (s t )
the law of motion of capital,
Nt+1
kt+1 (s t ) − (1 − δ)kt (s t−1 ) = xt (s t )
Nt
and the non-negativity constraint,
ct (s t ), lt (s t ), xt (s t ) ≥ 0
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
8 / 25
The Model
On the production side:
Yt (s t ) = At (s t )F (Kt (s t−1 ), Zt Lt (s t )),
where Zt = (1 + γ)t . Therefore, the representative Firms maximizes the
following profit function:
At (s t )F (Kt (s t−1 ), Zt Lt (s t )) − rt (s t )Kt (s t−1 ) − wt (s t )Lt (s t ).
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
9 / 25
The Model
Finally,
Nt kt (s t−1 ) = Kt (s t−1 )
Nt lt (s t ) = Lt (s t )
and the aggregate resource constraint
Nt (ct (s t ) + xt (s t )) + Gt = (Ct (s t ) + Xt (s t )) + Gt = Yt (s t )
where working-age population grows at a constant rate, i.e.
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
Nt+1
Nt
= 1 + gn .
10 / 25
The Model
For practical purposes of our analysis, we assume the following functional
forms for the utility and production functions
U(Ct , Lt ) = ln(Ct ) + ψln(1 − Lt )
F (Kt , Zt Lt ) = Ktα (Zt Lt )1−α
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
11 / 25
The Model
Some manipulation of the first order conditions yield the following
equations for de-trended variables
1 + τxt
cˆt
yˆt
ψˆ
ct
= (1 − τlt )(1 − α)
1 − lt
lt
1
y
ˆ
t
ˆ t
= βE
(θ
+ (1 − δ)(1 + τxt+1 ))
cˆt+1 kˆt+1
(1)
(2)
These two equations, together with
cˆt + gˆt + (1 + gn )(1 + gz )kˆt+1 − (1 − δ)kˆt = yˆt
yˆt = kˆtα (zt lt )1−α
(3)
(4)
completely characterize the competitive equilibrium.
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
12 / 25
Parameter Choice: Yearly Data from 1968 to 2005.
α is taken from Ismihan and Metin-Ozcan (2006) as 0.425.
δ is taken from Cicek and Elgin (2010) as 0.047.
β and ψ are calibrated as 0.984 and 3.88.
gn =0.0224 is from SPO and γ=0.015 from a growth accounting
exercise.
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
13 / 25
Yearly Wedges
Figure 3
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
14 / 25
Output:
DataData
vs.vs. Model
Figure 4. Output:
Models with Efficiency, Labor, Investment and Goverment
Accounting Wedges
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
15 / 25
Investment:
Data vs. Model
Figure 5. Investment: Data vs. Models with Efficiency, Labor, Investment and
Goverment Accounting Wedges
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
16 / 25
Hours
DataData
vs.vs.Model
Figureworked:
6. Hours Worked:
Models with Efficiency, Labor, Investment and
Goverment Accounting Wedges
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
17 / 25
Consumption:
DataData
vs. vs.Model
Figure 7. Consumption:
Models with Efficiency, Labor, Investment and
Goverment Accounting Wedges
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE
Figure 8. 2011
18 / 25
Parameter Choice: Quarterly Data from 2000 to 2009.
α is taken from Ismihan and Metin-Ozcan (2006) as 0.425.
δ is taken from Cicek and Elgin (2010) as 0.0105.
β and ψ are calibrated as 0.99 and 3.60.
gn =0.047 is from SPO and γ=0.03 from a growth accounting
exercise.
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
19 / 25
Quarterly wedges
Figure 8.
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
20 / 25
Output:
Data
Modelwith Efficiency, Labor, Investment and Gov
ure
9. Output:
Datavs.
vs. Models
Accounting Wedges
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
21 / 25
Figure
10. Investment:
vs. Models with Efficiency, Labor, Investment
Investment:
Data Data
vs. Model
Goverment Accounting Wedges
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
22 / 25
worked:
Data
vs.vs.Model
ureHours
11. Hours
Worked:
Data
Models with Efficiency, Labor, Investmen
Goverment Accounting Wedges
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
23 / 25
gure
12. Consumption:
Data
Models with Efficiency, Labor, Investmen
Consumption:
Data
vs.vs.Model
Goverment Accounting Wedges
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
24 / 25
Concluding Remarks
Our business cycle accounting exercise suggests that efficiency wedge
is the most important among the four wedges considered
Next comes the labor wedge for certain periods.
This suggest that productivity considerations alone best explain the
evolution of aggregate economic variables in Turkey throughout the
1968-2005 period.
On the other hand, labor market considerations are also important for
the 2000-2009 period.
The predictive power of the efficiency and labor wedges suggests that
labor market rigidities and input financing frictions should be a focus
for policy.
Elgin and C
¸ i¸cek (BOUN, UMN)
EUROCONFERENCE 2011
25 / 25