IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i10p4590-d1657898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Technology-Oriented Kuznets Curve Hypothesis Valid in Türkiye? An Assessment in the Context of SDG-10

Author

Listed:
  • Murat Akça

    (Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kafkas University, 36000 Kars, Türkiye)

  • Ömer Uğur Bulut

    (Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kafkas University, 36000 Kars, Türkiye)

  • Samet Topal

    (Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kafkas University, 36000 Kars, Türkiye)

  • Önder Balcı

    (Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kafkas University, 36000 Kars, Türkiye)

  • Deniz Özyakışır

    (Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kafkas University, 36000 Kars, Türkiye)

  • Serhat Çamkaya

    (Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kafkas University, 36000 Kars, Türkiye)

Abstract

Technological advancements around the world have generated important discussions about their impact on income distribution, the type of economic growth, and social welfare. These improvements are critical for both economic development and social inequality in developing countries such as Türkiye. The paper examines the long-run impact of technological innovation on income inequality (IEQ) in Türkiye by testing the Technological Kuznets Curve (TKC) hypothesis. The model uses data from 1990 to 2021 and represents IEQ by the Gini coefficient, technological innovation by patent applications, along with public expenditures used as control variables. The findings of the Fourier ADL cointegration test support the validity of the TKC hypothesis for Türkiye. This suggests that technological innovation increases inequality until the critical turning point in 2008, when the threshold number of 2015 patent applications was exceeded. Using Fourier FMOLS, DOLS, and CCR methods for robustness checks, the main results show public expenditures as a significant factor stabilizing long-term income dynamics. These results imply that growth strategies in the area of technology development should not merely favor innovation but also include measures to increase social welfare in Türkiye. This requires not just the stabilizing role of public spending, but technological growth supported by investment in education, skills, and social welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Murat Akça & Ömer Uğur Bulut & Samet Topal & Önder Balcı & Deniz Özyakışır & Serhat Çamkaya, 2025. "Is the Technology-Oriented Kuznets Curve Hypothesis Valid in Türkiye? An Assessment in the Context of SDG-10," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4590-:d:1657898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4590/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4590/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence F. Katz & Kevin M. Murphy, 1992. "Changes in Relative Wages, 1963–1987: Supply and Demand Factors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(1), pages 35-78.
    2. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Ufuk Akcigit & Antonin Bergeaud & Richard Blundell & David Hemous, 2019. "Innovation and Top Income Inequality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 1-45.
    4. Shin, Inyong & Kim, Hyunho & Yamamura, Eiji, 2008. "Technological Progress and the Future of Kuznets Curve's," MPRA Paper 18866, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Marcelo Santos & Tiago Neves Sequeira & Alexandra Ferreira-Lopes, 2017. "Income Inequality and Technological Adoption," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(4), pages 979-1000, October.
    6. Tao Tang & Lizeth Cuesta & Brayan Tillaguango & Rafael Alvarado & Abdul Rehman & Diana Bravo-Benavides & Natalia Zárate, 2022. "Causal Link between Technological Innovation and Inequality Moderated by Public Spending, Manufacturing, Agricultural Employment, and Export Diversification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-25, July.
    7. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    8. David H. Autor & Frank Levy & Richard J. Murnane, 2003. "The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1279-1333.
    9. Gravina, Antonio Francesco & Lanzafame, Matteo, "undated". "Nonlinearities and the Determinants of Inequality: New Panel Evidence," 2030 Agenda 308018, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Elfaki, Khalid Eltayeb & Ahmed, Elsadig Musa, 2024. "Testing technological Kuznets curve implications on achieving sustainable development goal 10 in seven Asian countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    11. David H. Autor & Frank Levy & Richard J. Murnane, 2003. "The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue nov.
    12. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
    13. Çamkaya, Serhat & Kaya, Yunus & Karabayir, Mehmet Emin, 2025. "Do renewable and nuclear R&D expenditures affect environmental quality in France? An assessment from the perspective of the LCC hypothesis and SDGs," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    14. Frederick Solt, 2020. "Measuring Income Inequality Across Countries and Over Time: The Standardized World Income Inequality Database," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(3), pages 1183-1199, May.
    15. Enders, Walter & Lee, Junsoo, 2012. "The flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root tests," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 196-199.
    16. Murat Cetin & Harun Demir & Selin Saygin, 2021. "Financial Development, Technological Innovation and Income Inequality: Time Series Evidence from Turkey," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 47-69, July.
    17. Antonelli, Cristiano & Gehringer, Agnieszka, 2017. "Technological change, rent and income inequalities: A Schumpeterian approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 85-98.
    18. David H. Autor & Lawrence F. Katz & Alan B. Krueger, 1998. "Computing Inequality: Have Computers Changed the Labor Market?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1169-1213.
    19. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, December.
    20. Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, August.
    21. Kosta Josifidis & Novica Supic, 2020. "Innovation and Income Inequality in the USA: Ceremonial versus Institutional Changes," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(2), pages 486-494, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jones, C.I., 2016. "The Facts of Economic Growth," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 3-69, Elsevier.
    2. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    3. Dupuy, Arnaud & Marey, Philip S., 2008. "Shifts and twists in the relative productivity of skilled labor," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 718-735, June.
    4. Kerekes, Monika, 2007. "Analyzing patterns of economic growth: a production frontier approach," Discussion Papers 2007/15, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    5. Titan Alon, 2018. "Earning More by Doing Less: Human Capital Specialization and the College Wage Premium," 2018 Meeting Papers 497, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    6. Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Bin Peng & Russell Smyth & Quanda Zhang, 2022. "R&D intensity and income inequality in the G7: 1870–2016," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(3), pages 263-282, July.
    7. Gries, T. & Grundmann, R. & Palnau, I. & Redlin, M., 2015. "Does technological change drive inclusive industrialization? : A review of major concepts and findings," MERIT Working Papers 2015-044, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. Patrick Mellacher, 2021. "Growth, Inequality and Declining Business Dynamism in a Unified Schumpeter Mark I + II Model," Papers 2111.09407, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    9. Elfaki, Khalid Eltayeb & Ahmed, Elsadig Musa, 2024. "Testing technological Kuznets curve implications on achieving sustainable development goal 10 in seven Asian countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    10. Harashima, Taiji, 2023. "Secular Increase in Economic Inequality Accompanying a Constant Output/Capital Ratio," MPRA Paper 117705, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. David J. Deming & Mikko I. Silliman, 2024. "Skills and Human Capital in the Labor Market," NBER Working Papers 32908, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Florian Brugger & Christian Gehrke, 2017. "The Neoclassical Approach to Induced Technical Change: From Hicks to Acemoglu," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(4), pages 730-776, November.
    13. Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Schnabel, Isabel & Truger, Achim & Wieland, Volker, 2019. "Den Strukturwandel meistern. Jahresgutachten 2019/20 [Dealing with Structural Change. Annual Report 2019/20]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201920.
    14. Oscar Afonso, 2010. "Growth And Wage Inequality In A Scale‐Independent Model With R&D And Human‐Capital Accumulation," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 78(2), pages 149-182, March.
    15. Grafström, Jonas, 2017. "Technological Change and Wage Polarization – The Illiberal Populist Response," Ratio Working Papers 294, The Ratio Institute.
    16. Meschi, Elena & Taymaz, Erol & Vivarelli, Marco, 2011. "Trade, technology and skills: Evidence from Turkish microdata," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(S1), pages 60-70.
    17. Thu Hien DAO & Frédéric DOCQUIER & Mathilde MAUREL & Pierre SCHAUS, 2017. "Global Migration in the 20th and 21st Centuries: the Unstoppable Force of Demography," Working Paper 96d89f28-0e80-4703-9b33-6, Agence française de développement.
    18. David J. Deming, 2017. "The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 1593-1640.
    19. Davide Consoli & Francesco Vona & Francesco Rentocchini, 2016. "That was then, this is now: skills and routinization in the 2000s," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(5), pages 847-866.
    20. Ross, Matthew B., 2017. "Routine-biased technical change: Panel evidence of task orientation and wage effects," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 198-214.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4590-:d:1657898. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.