Affiliation:
1. TÜRK HAVA KURUMU ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İŞLETME FAKÜLTESİ
2. TÜRK HAVA KURUMU ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ANKARA HAVACILIK MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU
Abstract
In this study, the relationship between Turkey's defense expenditures and the independent variables selected as gross domestic product, foreign debt, and unemployment, in a 33-year period between 1998 and 2020, were examined using the Toda-Yamamoto causality test. According to the findings, it has been observed that there is causality from defense expenditures to gross domestic product, that is, the change in defense expenditures affects gross domestic product. Similarly, causality has been determined from defense expenditures to external debt. Therefore, it is possible to state that the change in defense expenditures will have an impact on foreign debt. In this respect, the findings are in agreement with the literature. The increase in defense expenditures will increase the production of the defense industry, the export of this production will result in a resource inflow to the country and the gross domestic product will increase. On the other hand, in some countries, defense expenditures will be financed by debt from foreign sources, which will increase foreign debt.
Publisher
Ege Akademik Bakis (Ege Academic Review)
Reference52 articles.
1. Ali, A., and M. Ather. 2014. “Impact of defense expenditure on economic growth: Time series evidence from Pakistan.” Global Journal of Management and Business Research 14 (9).
2. Ateşoglu, H. S. 2004. “Defense spending and investment in the United States.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 27 (1): 163-170.
3. Ateşoglu, H. S., and M. J. Mueller. 1990. “Defense spending and economic growth.” Defence Economics 2 (1): 19-27.
4. Atik, M., Y. Köse, B. Yılmaz, and F. Sağlam. 2015. “Kripto Para: Bitcoin ve Döviz Kurları Üzerine Etkileri.” Bartın Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 6 (11): 247-262.
5. Abdel-Khalek, G., M. G. Mazloum, and , M. R. M. El Zeiny. 2020. “Military expenditure and economic growth: the case of India.” Review of Economics and Political Science 5 (2): 116-135.