Economics World, May-June 2016, Vol. 4, No.

3, 101-110
doi: 10.17265/2328-7144/2016.03.001
D DAVID PUBLISHING

The Role of Human Capital in Economic Growth

Derviş Boztosun, Semra Aksoylu, Zübeyde Şentürk Ulucak

Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

In endogenous growth theories, with the endogeneity of technology and its inclusion into the model, the new
technologies produced by individuals equipped with knowledge, skills, and experience by using this technology
were regarded as the human capital investments of countries. Later, the effects of human capital on economic
growth became a significant topic in the empirical literature. In this study, initially the basic approaches to human
capital were theoretically investigated. Then, the relationships between human capital and economic growth were
analyzed with cointegration and causality tests by using the data of Turkey for the period 1961-2011. Our findings
revealed a dual causality relationship between human capital and economic growth variables.

Keywords: human capital, economic growth, cointegration with structural break

Introduction
Economic growth in its simplest form is defined in the economics literature as the increase in goods
and services produced in a country. It is also defined as a continuous increase in gross domestic product per
capita. Such growth is an indicator of the development level desired by every country in an internationaly
competitive environment. Labor is a production factor used to improve economic growth through the
production of goods and services. Investments in labor improve the productivity of human capital. The
knowledge, skills, experience, and similar assets of individuals significantly affect production factors through
labor and accelerate economic growth (Koç, 2013). In this way, every supplementary asset to labor speeds up
economic growth.
The theory of human capital regards the individual not only as a component of the production function but
also as a dynamic input in the realization of economic progress (Özşahin & Karaçor, 2013). Such dynamism
attributed to the individual represents the knowledge and technology factors in economic growth models. There
are several studies in the literature which investigate the relationships between human capital and economic
growth from various aspects. Considering the basis of economic growth models, it was observed that Smith and
Ricardo-like economists were the pioneers of classical growth theories. They investigated the growth processes
of countries and provided significant contributions to the relevant literature.
In a neo-classical growth model, Solow (1956) considered technology as an external factor and did not
explain the emergence of technology in his model. Later, technology was included in economic models as an


Derviş Boztosun, associate professor, Colleges of Applied Sciences, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
Semra Aksoylu, associate professor, Colleges of Applied Sciences, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
Zübeyde Şentürk Ulucak, research assistant, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Erciyes University, Kayseri,
Turkey.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Zubeyde Şentürk Ulucak, Erciyes Universty, Iktisadi ve Idari
Bilimler Fakultesi, Iktisat Bolumu, Kayseri, Turkey.
102 ROLE OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC GROWTH

endogenous factor and the significance of human capital using information was proposed (Taban & Kar, 2006).
In internal growth models, Romer (1986; 1990), Lucas (1988), and later economists investigated economic
growth through physical and human capital accumulation. Besides labor and capital, human capital had a
significant place in endogenous growth models and additionally the effects of human capital on economic
growth were pointed out in previous studies in the literature (Telatar & Terzi, 2010).
The present study was conducted to assess the relationships between human capital and economic growth
by means of human capital index data. Initially, the concept of human capital was defined and the relations with
economic growth were pointed out. Then, theoretical and empirical studies were provided about the subject. In
the practical section, the human capital index data of Turkey covering the period between 1961-2011 were used
to analyze the relationships between human capital and economic growth with cointegration and causality tests.
Finally, the results were discussed with the findings of earlier researchers.

The Concept of Human Capital

Businesses use three types of capital: physical capital (factory, stocks etc.), financial capital (investments),
and intellectual capital. The very last one, intellectual capital, is defined as “nonfinancial fixed assets-intangible
assets”. Human capital is a component of intellectual capital. It represents the investments made on humans and
encompasses human-related factors like knowledge, skills, experience, sufficiency, business quality, employee
relations, emotional intelligence, entrepreneurialism, flexibility, employee loyalty, employee satisfaction,
education, and creativity. In businesses, investment on humans is the most difficult investment to control.
The equivalent of human capital in the economy is labor, which is among the production factors and
operates in order to earn. The individual should produce a good or a service to earn this wage. The knowledge,
experience, and similar qualifications used in producing this good or service constitute the individual’s gears
and such gears were termed as human capital until the end of the 1950s (Bal, 2011). However, the focus herein
is not only the physical power of the individual but also the knowledge, experience, analytical thinking ability,
and similar intangible values. Later, human capital was defined not only as the power spent in the production of
a good or service, but also as the qualifications of the individual.
Romer (1990) regarded human capital as the source of economic efficiency. The OECD (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Developmen) defines human capital as the contributions of knowledge and skills
made by an individual to a country’s economy and thus as the improvement in social and economic
development made by an individual (Eser & Gökmen, 2009). Human capital can then briefly be defined as the
contributions of individuals and every kind of knowledge and experience gained by an individual.
Since human capital is accepted as the qualifications acquired by individuals, in other words, the dynamic
of the economy, these qualifications can be summarized as all kinds of knowledge and experiences which
improve production (Karataş & Çankaya, 2010). Human capital material is directly proportional to the
country’s economy. However, it may be misleading to link the efficiency of human capital only to the
increase in a country’s population. In fact, the quantitative traits of the population come into prominence in
developing countries, while knowledge, skills, experience, and education-like qualitative traits come into
prominence in developed countries. When we consider the situation today, it is easy to see that not the countries
with a large population, but those with educated, healthy, and long-living individuals are more developed
(Yumuşak, 2008). Such traits indicate that a large population alone is not sufficient for the efficiency of human
capital.
 ROLE OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC GROWTH 103

Throughout the world in the mid-20th century, especially after the Second World War, an educated labor
force became a significant issue with countries’ conversion into knowledgeable societies and countries assigned
as much significance to human capital as they did to physical and financial capital (Doğan & Şanli, 2003).
Although Malthus’s thesis “Increase in population reduces the income per capita” established a presence in
neo-classical theory, later this thesis was abandoned since high-tech developments increased the income per capita
despite the increasing population (Deliktaş, 2001). Kremer (1993) regarded the technological process as an
increasing function of the population and adapted the principle of “the higher the population, the higher the
number of people there will be to invent new technologies and the higher the knowledge gain will be” (Kremer,
1993, p. 712). Such an opinion was approved by others with the contributions made by technology to a
country’s economy.
Lucas (1988) pointed out the observable effects of both human capital and physical-financial capital on
economic models. The author also pointed out that individuals should spend time on various activities to
improve their performance and individual skills, a recommendation that is commonly mentioned in human
capital theory (Lucas, 1988). Despite different definitions of human capital, the generally accepted definition
encompasses every kind of individual-oriented knowledge and experience.

Human Capital and Economic Growth Relations

The outcomes of empirical studies and technological innovations have resulted in directing tremendous
energy to human capital. In all countries with successful permanent growth, education, and training have allowed
countries to overcome the changes in production methods and to improve human capital (Becker, 1993). Thus,
every kind of investment made on human capital can also be viewed as a contribution to a country’s economy.
While explaining economic growth, neo-classical theorists accepted technology and human capital as
exogenous factors (Kar & Ağır, 2006). Later on, neo-classical theory supported the hypothesis of
“technological developments eliminated the problems which resulted from population increase and the
population even positively affected economic development” (Güneş, 2005). Inclusion of human capital into
economic growth models was started by Romer (1986). Contrary to the neo-classical growth model, Romer
(1986) included technology into the endogenous growth model and thus endogenized technology. Romer (1990)
then endogenized technology and included human capital into the model. Lucas (1988) developed a dynamic to
define the technology variable and defined this dynamic as human capital in the model. Romer (1990) regarded
technology as the outcome of individual abilities to obtain new products with new ideas and then included
human capital accordingly. Additionally, Lucas (1988) included human capital into the model as the
qualification levels of individuals (Ulucak, 2015).
Endogenous growth models instead focus on the quality of the population and accept the primary
determinants of economic growth as either a direct increase in human capital or indirect activities of human
capital like R&D activities. Economic success provides significant contributions to investments, primarily to
human capital, and also increases economic efficiency and productivity (Tsen, 2006). Positive economic
developments ensure more qualified human capital. As one can see, although the direction of interaction
between economic growth and human capital differs most of the time, their attraction to each other is always
the same. While the positive attributes of human capital, namely, the implementation of knowledge and
technology, affect economic growth, positive developments in the economy affect the quality of human capital
(Genç, Değer, & Berber, 2009).
104 ROLE OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC GROWTH

The investments made on human capital are highly significant in terms of economic competition among
countries. In fact, the components which make some countries more prominent than others include any kind of
supplements to inparticular, labor, which is a production factor. Countries with a qualified labor force integrate
this force with advanced technology and thus experience the advantage of always being one step ahead in
competition. In this way, increasing efficiencies in human capital provide significant contributions to a
country’s economy (Çakmak & Gümüş, 2005).
Previous studies and experiences revealed that economic growth could not be achieved by only improving
physical conditions. Additionally, the knowledge and skills acquired by the working and producing individual
should also be accepted as a tool for economic progress. Likewise, Becker, Murpy, and Tamura (1990) in a
study titled “Human Capital, Fertility and Economic Growth”, indicated higher returns of human capital and
education in developed countries than in developing countries. Based upon the aforementioned information,
one can see that the size of a population alone is not sufficiently effective on economic growth and the bottom
line is the knowledge, skills, and experience-like attributes of the population.

Literature Review
The research on human capital was started by Lucas (1998) and Romer (1986) with the inclusion of
human capital into their models and the research continues today. Schultz (1961) differentiated human capital
from the traditional perception of capital and accepted it as knowledge investment made on humans and
indicated that a labor force which is not enriched with knowledge would not provide any contributions to
economic growth in modern economies.
Benhabib and Spiegel (1994) investigated the role of human capital in economic growth and reported the
positive impacts of physical and human capital on economic growth. Sacerdoti, Brunschwig, and Tang (1998),
in a study carried out in Western Africa, investigated the effects of human capital on economic growth and
indicated that physical capital was more effective on economic growth than human capital. The studies
indicated that the reason why human capital was not very effective was due to the lack of qualified and trained
individuals who were able to use advanced technology in human capital.
Evans, Green, and Murinde (2002), in a study to investigate the effects of human capital and financial
developments on economic growth, used the 21-year data of 82 countries. The researchers indicated that
financial development was as effective as human capital in economic growth. Güneş (2005) analyzed the
relationships between population increase and economic growth with cointegration and a vector error
correction model. He indicated that population increase had a short-term impact on economic growth and the
thesis of “population increase negatively affects the economic growth” was not valid for Turkey.
In a study pointing out the significance of human capital in an endogenous growth model, Taban and Kar
(2006) used the causality test on annual data for Turkey covering the period within 1969-2001 and reported a
positive and reciprocal relationship between human capital and economic growth. Kar and Ağır (2006) applied
cointegration and causality tests on data within 1926-1994 to assess the relationships between human capital
and economic growth. The researchers used the share of health and education expenses in income to indicate
human capital and found a causality relationship between the variables.
Sarkar (2007), in his study, used the data of 92 countries covering the period of 1970-1987. He obtained
similar results with Benhabib and Spiegel (1994) and indicated that human capital was effective and had
positive effects both on the prevention of income injustice and on economic growth. Ljungberg and Nilsson
 ROLE OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC GROWTH 105

(2009) carried out a study on the Swedish economy with data covering the period within 1870-2000 and
investigated the relationship between human capital and economic growth with the Granger causality test. The
researchers reported that human capital was a significant factor in the growth of the Swedish economy, but the
effects of human capital with improved educational levels after the 1970s had relatively lower impacts on
economic growth than expected.
Bucci and Torre (2009), in their study, analyzed the relationship between the change in population and
income per capita and concluded that human capital had ambiguous effects on income per capita during the
process of knowledge and skill formation. However, the population had both direct and indirect impacts on
economic growth.
Altıntaş and Çetintaş (2010) used data in Turkey for the period of 1970-2007 and investigated the
relationships among human capital, fixed capital, export and economic growth with cointegration and error
correction methods and tested the long and short-term causality relationships between the variables. The
researchers reported long-term significant positive relationships among human capital, fixed capital, and export
and concluded that human capital resulted in economic growth in Turkey.
Şimşek and Kadılar (2010) tested the causality relationships among human capital accumulation, export
and economic growth with cointegration and error correction methods. The researchers used real annual gross
domestic product, real export and enrollment to higher education data for the 1960-2004 period in Turkey and
concluded that on increase in export and human capital supported long-term growth and on increase in gross
domestic product nurtured on increase in human capital.

Empirical Study and Results

In this study, the long-term relationships between human capital and the gross domestic product (GDP) of
Turkey were analyzed for the period of 1961-2011. The human capital index created based on years of
education and returns of education was used to represent human capital (HC); real GDP values were used to
represent the GDP variable. The data for both variables were taken from the PWT (Penn World Tables)
database.
For sound and reliable outcomes, the unit root content of the variables used in estimations should be
analyzed. Structural breaks in tested series should also be taken into consideration because there may be
breakpoint unit roots in data series and the resultant outcomes may be misleading when they are not taken into
consideration. Therefore, tests were conducted in this study to identify structural breaks. To overcome such a
problem, Lee and Strazicich (2003) expanded the minimum Lagrande multipliers (LM) unit root test introduced
by Schmidt and Phillips (1992) to the literature. In the LM test, the null hypothesis can be formed by taking
structural breaks into consideration. Two structural breaks (at level and trend) are also identified as endogenous.
In this way, the number and dates of structural breaks and the presence of unit roots in series can be analyzed
reliably. The results for the unit root test on HC and GDP variables are provided in Table 1.
The unit root tests revealed that both variables included a unit root. In this case, the stable state of the
linear combination of these two variables should be identified through cointegration analysis. Cointegration
analysis tests the stable nature of the linear combination of unstable series including a unit root. It is also used
to assess long-term relations between series, to assess whether or not there is a long-term balance between
series and to assess the synchronized operation of series. There are various approaches in the literature to test
this relationship. Most of these approaches are based on the assumption that the nature of the cointegration
106 ROLE OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC GROWTH

vector is constant throughout the investigated period. However, micro economic variables in the long-run are
evidently affected and vary due to factors like economic crises, technology shocks, political changes, variations
in individual decision, and preferences. As was indicated by Perron (1989), such changes, also called structural
breaks, should definitely be taken into consideration in analyses for reliable outcomes. Therefore, in this study,
the cointegration test developed by Hatemi-J (2008) was used to take possible structural breaks into
consideration and to get better and more reliable results. The cointegration test introduced the literature by
Gregory and Hansen (1996) and allowance for one endogenous break among the investigated series was
expanded to two endogenous breaks by Hatemi-J (2008). The method operates over model 1 by considering
two structural breaks for the GDP and HC variables in long-term relations between the series as follows:
(1)
where is a dependent variable vector and is an independent variable vector. In this model, the
dummy variables were defined as follows if t > [nτ1] then = 1, otherwise 0; if t > [nτ2] then = 1,
otherwise 0. The terms τ1 and τ2 have a value within 0-1 and represent the unknown parameters indicating
structural break times. Hatemi-J (2008) formed the null and alternative hypothesis of the cointegration test as
follows:
H : There is no cointegration between the variables.
H : There is cointegration between the variables.

Table 1
Results of Lee Strazicich Unit Root Test With Structural Breaks


Critical values
Variable Model value Number of lags Break dates Test statistics
1% 5% 10%
1978

1: 0.4
Level 2 -3.1649 -4.54 -3.84 -3.50
1982

2 : 0.6
HC 2 1979
Level and trend -5.4850 -6.45 -5.67 -5.31
1992
2002

1: 0.4
Level 1 -1.8451 -4.54 -3.84 -3.50
2007

2 : 0.8
GDP 1 1984
Level and trend -6.5070 -6.42 -5.65 -5.32
1999

Hatemi-J (2008) used three different test statistics, namely, ADF, , and , to test the null hypothesis.
ADF tests the significance of the parameter value through the regression of the first difference of the
error term of model 1 ( ) with ∆ …∆ values. and are based on the deviation-adjusted
first-order auto correlation coefficient calculations and are defined as follows:
∑ ̂ ̂ ∑
(2)
∑ ̂
where . is the kernel weight function including standard conditions for spectral intensity estimators. The
symbol B yields the band width meeting the conditions of ∞ and ⁄ ), and yields the
autocovariance function. Then, the autocovariance function is defined by

̂ ̂ ̂ ̂ (3)

where the and test statistics were calculated as defined below

 ROLE OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC GROWTH 107

∑ ⁄ /∑ ̂
In accordance with the defined test statistics, the Hatemi-J (2008) cointegration test results calculated for
model 1 are provided in Table 2.

Table 2
Hatemi-J (2008) Cointegration Test Results
Critical values
Test statistics Break years Calculated value
1% 5% 10%
1981-1990 -6.0070 -6.503 -6.015 -5.653
1980-1995 -7.6586 -6.503 -6.015 -5.653
1980-1995 -121.1133 -90.794 -76.003 -52.232
(The Gauss codes written by Hatemi-J were used)

The calculated test statistics are given on the left side of the critical values on the table. Therefore, the null
hypothesis indicating “there is no cointegration between the variables” was rejected and it was decided that
there is a long-term cointegration between the variables, in other words, variables in the long-run exhibited
synchronous action.
Causality analysis between the variables is another critical issue. The causality test recommended by
Hacker and Hatemi-J (2006) is both a newer method and uses the bootstrap technique allowing calculation of
critical values in accordance with the data set used in the study. Therefore, the method was regarded as a more
reliable method. Since Hacker and Hatemi-J (2006) causality test produces proper critical values for the data set
through the bootstrap technique, it can yield more efficient outcomes for analysis with low observations
(Hacker & Hatemi-J, 2006). Again, since this method is developed based on Toda and Yamamoto’s (1995)
MWALD (Modified Wald test) test, it is not sensitive against the integration level of the series. Toda and
Yamamoto (1995) recommended the modified MWALD test assuming the normal distribution of the error term

 
MVALD  C C Z Z 1  S U C  C  
and asymptotic chi-square distribution of the test statistics to test the null hypothesis of “no-Granger causality”.
 1


where  indicates the Kronecker multiplier, C indicates the p  n1  n p  d  matrix, S indicates
the variance covariance matrix of the error term of the model, and  indicates the column stacking processor.
U


The null hypothesis of the test indicates “no-Granger causality” as expressed below

H 0 : C  0
Hacker and Hatemi-J (2006) approach calculates the critical values for this hypothesis by using the
bootstrap technique. The critical values calculated with this method and test statistics are provided in Table 3.
The results provided in Table 3 indicate that the null hypothesis for both cases is rejected. In this case, the
causality analysis results indicate that the changes in GDP were the reason for the changes in HC and vice versa.
Therefore, there was a dual causality relationship between the variables.
The estimation of long-term cointegration parameters in which human capital was taken as an explanatory
variable, and the calculation of their effects on the dependent variable are other critical issues. When the OLS
108 ROLE OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC GROWTH

(Ordinary Least Squares) estimator is used without the performance of relevant corrections, the estimations will
then be deviant and inconsistent because of autocorrelation and endogeneity problems (Montalvo, 1995). The
FMOLS (Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares) estimator of Phillips and Hansen (1990), the CCR
(Canonical Cointegration Regression) estimator of Park (1992), and the DOLS (Dynamic Ordinary Least
Squares) estimator of Stock and Watson (1993) take these corrections into consideration; therefore they are
commonly used as cointegration estimators. In this study, the long-term cointegration parameters were
separately estimated by using these estimators. The estimation results calculated by using the logarithmic
values of the variables are provided in Table 4. In this way, coefficients were able to be interpreted as having
flexibility.

Table 3
Causality Test Results
Bootstrap critical value Bootstrap critical value Bootstrap critical value
Hypothesis Test statistics
1% 5% 10%
GDP > HC 7.791 7.353 4.096 2.824
HC > GDP 7.524 7.294 4.059 2.808
(The Gauss codes written by Hacker and Hatemi-J were used)

Table 4
Long-Term Cointegration Parameters
OLS FMOLS DOLS CCR
2.907097 3.216245 3.418860 3.215854
LHC (0.3135) (0.1179) (0.0546) (0.1170)
[0.0000] [0.0000] [0.0000] [0.0000]
11.17190 10.92499 10.52832 10.92434
Sabit (0.2357) (0.0703) (0.0571) (0.0666)
[0.0000] [0.0000] [0.0000] [0.0000]
2
R 0.995411 0.979751 0.996425 0.979727
Notes. The values in parentheses indicate standard errors; the values in brackets indicate probability values.

The first column in Table 4 presents the results obtained with the OLS estimator. The autocorrelation
problem in OLS estimation was solved by including the AR(1) process into the model. However, if there is an
endogeneity problem, then the results are deviant and inconsistent. The other estimators do not have such
problems. Therefore, the results obtained with FMOLS, DOLS, and CCR are more reliable. After all, OLS
estimations were different from the other estimations and had higher standard errors. The FMOLS and CCR
estimators yielded almost identical results. The results obtained from all the estimators had the uppermost
significance levels. The least standard error was observed in the DOLS estimator. According to the DOLS
result, a 1% increase in human capital yielded about a 3.2% increase in GDP.

Conclusion
In this study, the significance of human capital in endogenous growth theories was pointed out and the
effects of labor enriched with knowledge and skills on economic growth were obtained. In modern economies,
developed countries have established their place in international competition not with the quantitative wealth of
their human capital but with highly qualified and educated individuals. Therefore, the relationship between
economic growth and human capital has been the topic of several studies. In the present study, the relationship
 ROLE OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC GROWTH 109

between economic growth and human capital was empirically analyzed and a long-term cointegration
relationship was observed between these two variables. The findings of the present study revealed that these
variables acted synchronously in the long-run and there was a balanced relationship between them. Another
outcome of this study was the presence of a dual causality relationship between the variables. Such an outcome
can be interpreted as follows: an increase in human capital was responsible for increased incomes in Turkey
and vice versa. According to long-term cointegration parameters in which HC was used as the explanatory
variable, a 1% increase in human capital yielded about a 3.2% increase in GDP. Accordingly, the cost fractions
spent to increase the human capital level in the long-run result in more than a 3-fold increase in GDP. Such a
case revealed that politicians searching solutions for growth and development should never hesitate to take
steps to improve human capital levels.

References
Altıntaş, H., & Çetintaş, H. (2010). Türkiye’de ekonomik büyüme, beşeri sermaye ve ihracat arasındaki ilişkilerin ekonometrik
analizi: 1970-2005. Erciyes Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 36, 33-56.
Bal, O. (2011). Beşeri Sermaye ve Ekonomik Gelişme. Uluslararası Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi. Retrieved from
http://akademikpersonel.kocaeli.edu.tr/oguz.bal/bildiri/oguz.bal21.09.2011_19.09.22bildiri.pdf
Becker, G. S. (1993). Human Capital (3rd ed.). Chicago and London: The University Chicago Press.
Becker, G. S., Murphy, K. M., & Tamura, R. (1990). Human capital, fertility, and economic growth. The Journal of Political
Economy, (October), Part. 2: The Problem of Development: A Conference of the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise
Systems, 98(5), 12-37.
Benhabib, J., & Spiegel, M. M. (1994). The role of human capital in economic development evidence from aggregate
cross-country data. Journal of Monetary Economics, 34, 143-173.
Bucci, A., & La Torre, D. (2009). Population and economic growth with human and physical capital investments. Int Rev Econ,
Springer, 56, 17-27.
Çakmak, E., & Gümüş, S. (2005). Türkiye’de beşeri sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme: Ekonometrik bir analiz (1960-2002). Ankara
Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 60(1), 59-72.
Deliktaş, E. (2001). Malthusgil yaklaşımdan modern ekonomik büyümeye. Ege Akademik Bakış, 1(1), 1-19.
Doğan, S., & Şanli, D. (2003). İktisadi kalkınmada beşeri sermaye. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 8(1), 173-196.
Eser, K., & Ekiz Gökmen, Ç. (2009). Beşeri sermayenin ekonomik gelişme üzerindeki etkileri: Dünya deneyimi ve Türkiye
üzerine gözlemler. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 41-56.
Evans, A. D., Green, C. J., & Murinde, V. (2002). Human capital and financial development in economic growth: New evidence
using the translog production function. International Journal of Finance and Economics, Int. J. Fin. Econ. 7, 123-140.
Genç, M. C., Değer, M. K., & Berber, M. (2009). Beşeri sermaye, ihracat ve ekonomik büyüme: Türkiye ekonomisi üzerine
nedensellik analizi. Uluslar Arası 7. Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, 48-60.
Gregory, A. W., & Hansen, B. E. (1996). Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. Journol of
Econometrics, 70, 99-126.
Güneş, Ş. (2005). Türkiye’de nüfus artışının ekonomik büyümeyle ilişkisi üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Ankara Üniversitesi
SBF Dergisi, 60(3), 123-136.
Hacker, R. S., & Hatemi, J. A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap
distributions: Theory and application. Applied Economics, 38, 1489-1500.
Hatemi-J, A. (2008). Tests for cointegration with two unknown regime shifts with an application to financial market integration.
Empirical Economics, 35, 497-505.
Montalvo, J. G. (1995). Comparing cointegration regression estimators: Some additional Monte Carlo results. Economic Letters,
48, 229-234.
Kar, M., & Ağır, H. (2006). Türkiye’de beşeri sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Eşbütünleşme yaklaşımı ile nedensellik testi,
1926-1994. Selçuk Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F. Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(11), 51-68.
Karataş, M., & Çankaya, E. (2010). İktisadi kalkınma sürecinde beşeri sermayeye ilişkin bir inceleme. Mehmet Akif Ersoy
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(3), 29-55.
110 ROLE OF HUMAN CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC GROWTH

Koç, A. (2013). Beşeri sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Yatay kesit analizi ile AB ülkeleri üzerine bir değerlendirme.
Maliye Dergisi (Temmuz-Aralık), 165, 241-258.
Kremer, M. (1993). Population growth and technological change: One million B.C. to 1990. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
108(3), 681-716.
Lee, J., & Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. The Review of
Economics and Statistic, 85(4), 1082-1089.
Ljungberg, J., & Nilsson, A. (2009). Human capital and economic growth: Sweden 1870-2000. Cliometrica, 3, 71-95.
Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3-42.
Özşahin, Ş., & Karaçor, Z. (2013). Ekonomik büyümenin belirleyicilerinden biri olarak beşeri sermaye: Yükseköğrenimin türkiye
ekonomisi için önemi. Niğde Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 6(1), 148-162.
Park, J. (1992). Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica, 60, 119-143.
Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57, 1361-1401.
Phillips, P. C. B., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regressions with i(1) processes. Review of
Economic Studies, 57, 99-125.
Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71-102.
Sacerdoti, E., Brunschwig, S., & Tang, J. (1998). The impact of human capital on growth: Evidence from west Africa.
International Monetary Fund, African Department (IMF Working Paper), WP/98/162 (November), 1-34. Retrieved from
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/wp98162.pdf
Sarkar, D. (2007). The role of human capital in economic growth revisited. Applied Economics Letters, 14(6), 419-423.
Schmidt, P., & Phillips, P. C. B. (1992). LM tests for a unit root in the presence of deterministic trends. Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics, 54(3), 257-287.
Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-16.
Solow, R. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94.
Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica,
61, 783-820.
Şimşek, M., & Kadılar, C. (2010). Türkiye’de beşeri sermaye, ihracat ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkinin nedensellik
analizi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 11(1), 115-140.
Taban, S., & Kar, M. (2006). Beşeri sermaye ve ekonomik büyüme: Nedensellik analizi 1969-2001. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 159-182.
Telatar, O. M., & Terzi, H. (2010). Nüfus ve eğitimin ekonomik büyümeye etkisi: Türkiye üzerine bir inceleme. Atatürk
Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F Dergisi, 24(2), 197-214.
Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of
Econometrics, 66, 225-250.
Tsen, W. H. (2006). Granger causality tests among openness to international trade, human capital accumulation and economic
growth in China: 1952-1999. International Economic Journal, 20(3), 285-302.
Ulucak, R. (2015). The environment in economic growth models: An application based on ecological footprint (Unpublished
doctoral thesis, Erciyes University, Social Sciences Institute) (in Turkish).
Yumuşak, İ. G. (2008). Beşeri sermayenin iktisadi önemi ve türkiye’nin beşeri sermaye potansiyeli. Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları
Dergisi, 55, 3-48.