IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Long run relationship between entry and exit: time series evidence from Turkish manufacturing industry

  • Ugur Soytas

    ()

    (Middle East Technical University, Department of Business Administration)

This paper investigates the long run relationship between entry and exit using aggregate annual data from the Turkish manufacturing industry for the period 1968-2001. The time series properties of the data imply that simple OLS regressions may yield spurious results. We employ both bivariate and multivariate models to test for Granger causality. Utilizing relatively new time series techniques, we find that exit Granger causes entry in the long run, but not vice versa. However, unlike many empirical findings in the literature, past exit has a negative effect on entry. Entrants seem to be put off by past exit in the long run. Hence, our results do not seem to support the replacement effect in the Turkish manufacturing industry in general. None of the other variables included in the multivariate analysis has significant effects on entry or exit. The generalized impulse responses between entry and exit confirm Granger causality results.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2006/Volume12/EB-06L60001A.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by AccessEcon in its journal Economics Bulletin.

Volume (Year): 12 (2006)
Issue (Month): 11 ()
Pages: 1-12

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-06l60001
Contact details of provider:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Geroski, Paul A, 2000. "Exploring the Niche Overlaps Between Organizational Ecology and Industrial Economics," CEPR Discussion Papers 2649, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Sims, Christopher A & Stock, James H & Watson, Mark W, 1990. "Inference in Linear Time Series Models with Some Unit Roots," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 113-44, January.
  3. Pesaran, H. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 1998. "Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 17-29, January.
  4. Kwiatkowski, D. & Phillips, P.C.B. & Schmidt, P., 1990. "Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity Against the Alternative of Unit Root : How Sure are we that Economic Time Series have a Unit Root?," Papers 8905, Michigan State - Econometrics and Economic Theory.
  5. Richard E. Caves, 1998. "Industrial Organization and New Findings on the Turnover and Mobility of Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 1947-1982, December.
  6. Geroski, P. A. & Mazzucato, M., 2001. "Modelling the dynamics of industry populations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 1003-1022, July.
  7. Koop, Gary & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Potter, Simon M., 1996. "Impulse response analysis in nonlinear multivariate models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 119-147, September.
  8. Jovanovic, B. & MacDonald, G.M., 1992. "The Life-Cycle of Competitive Industry," Papers 92-09, Rochester, Business - Financial Research and Policy Studies.
  9. Toda, Hiro Y. & Yamamoto, Taku, 1995. "Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1-2), pages 225-250.
  10. Elliott, Graham & Rothenberg, Thomas J & Stock, James H, 1996. "Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 813-36, July.
  11. Granger, C. W. J., 1988. "Causality, cointegration, and control," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 12(2-3), pages 551-559.
  12. Zapata, Hector O. & Rambaldi, Alicia N., 1996. "Monte Carlo Evidence On Cointegration And Causation," Staff Papers 31690, Louisiana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness.
  13. Ilmakunnas, Pekka & Topi, Jukka, 1996. "Microeconomic and Macroeconomic Influences on Entry and Exit of Firms," Research Discussion Papers 6/1996, Bank of Finland.
  14. Serena Ng & Pierre Perron, 2001. "LAG Length Selection and the Construction of Unit Root Tests with Good Size and Power," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1519-1554, November.
  15. Barbara Roberts & Steve Thompson, 2003. "Entry and Exit in a Transition Economy: The Case of Poland," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 225-243, May.
  16. Shapiro, Daniel & Khemani, R. S., 1987. "The determinants of entry and exit reconsidered," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 15-26, March.
  17. Fotopoulos, Georgios & Spence, Nigel, 1999. "Net entry behaviour in Greek manufacturing: consumer, intermediate and capital goods industries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(8), pages 1219-1230, November.
  18. Audretsch, David B., 1995. "Innovation, growth and survival," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 441-457, December.
  19. Geroski, P. A., 1995. "What do we know about entry?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 421-440, December.
  20. Richard Disney & Jonathan Haskel & Ylva Heden, 2003. "Entry, Exit and Establishment Survival in UK Manufacturing," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 91-112, 03.
  21. Johnson, Peter & Parker, Simon, 1994. " The Interrelationships between Births and Deaths," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 283-90, August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-06l60001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (John P. Conley)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.