Sustainability of Current Account Deficit in Turkey and an Ampirical Analysys for Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, Turkey’s current account deficit problem between the years 1980-2016 is tested whether it is sustainable or not. For this purpose, the ADF and the PP Unit Root test were applied firstly to the annual current account deficit (CAD)/GDP data from the IMF. Then, Lee Strazicich (2003, 2004) Unit Root Tests with two structural breaks was applied. Allowing Lee Strazicich with two structural breaks differs from the Zivot-Andrews (ZA)(1992) and Lumsdaine-Papell (LP) (1997) unit root tests in establishing the basic hypothesis. The ZA and LP unit root tests are based on the basic hypothesis of unit root existence without structural fracture. Based on the Lagrange multiplier proposed by Schmidt and Phillips (1992), LM unit root test with two structural breaks developed by Lee-Strazicich adopted the structural fractured unit root basic hypothesis.According to the ADF and PP test results, the CAD/GDP series is stationary at the level for both models. According to the LM test results, the unit root null hypothesis could be rejected. It is a stationary process in Turkey. This result is consistent with the ADF and PP test results. Empirical findings obtained from LM unit root test with two structural breaks show that current account deficits in Turkey are sustainable. The fact that the current account deficit is sustainable means the sustainability of external debts. The sustainability of deficit is one of the most emphasized issues especially from the perspective of countries which are dependent on foreign capital to finance their development and also crucial for the global system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".