علیت بین شهرنشینی و شکاف درآمدی مناطق شهری و روستایی استان‌های ایران: علیت گرنجری پانلی مبتنی بر رویکرد بوت استراپ

فصلنامه علمی برنامه ریزی منطقه ای

دوره 14، شماره 54، شهریور 1403، صفحه 13-22   

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/jzpm.2021.27985.3896

نویسندگان

وحید کفیلی^{* 1}؛ محمدسعید ذبیحی دان¹؛ جلیل خداپرست شیرازی²

¹استادیار گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اراک، اراک، ایران

²استادیار گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده اقتصاد و مدیریت، واحد شیراز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران

تاریخ دریافت: 28 اردیبهشت 1400،  تاریخ بازنگری: 09 آذر 1400،  تاریخ پذیرش: 20 آذر 1400 

چکیده

از جمله پدیده های عصر حاضر، افزایش جمعیت شهری است که به دنبال خود برخی مزایا و معایبی را به همراه می‌آورد. سرعت این پدیده در کشورهای در حال توسعه به مراتب بیشتر از کشورهای توسعه یافته بوده است. در ایران نیز شهرنشینی با سرعت بالائی در حال افزایش است. در این تحقیق علیت بین شهرنشینی و اختلاف درآمدی مناطق شهری و روستایی استان‌های ایران (1397-1376) مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. آزمون هم‌بستگی بین مقاطع نشان داد که بایستی از آزمون علیت گرنجری در شرایط هم‌بستگی بین مقاطع استفاده شود. با توجه به کارایی بالا در نمونه‌های کوچک و استفاده از فرا تحلیل ارائه‌شده فیشر (1932) ، از آزمون علیت ارائه‌شده توسط امیرمحمود و کوزه (2011) استفاده شد. نتایج به دست آمده نشان می‌دهد که در سطح 90 درصد اطمینان علیت از نرخ شهرنشینی به اختلاف درآمدی برای 9 استان (اردبیل، هرمزگان، گلستان، کردستان، سیستان و بلوچستان، سمنان، چهارمحال بختیاری، اصفهان و کهکیلویه و بویراحمد) برقرار است؛ اما علیت از اختلاف درآمدی به نرخ شهرنشینی فقط برای چهار استان (اردبیل، خراسان، بوشهر و هرمزگان) برقرار است. نتایج آزمون فرا تحلیل ارائه‌شده توسط فیشر (1932) نیز نشان‌دهنده عدم برقراری علیت در هر دو سمت است. عدم معنی‌داری علیت از نرخ شهرنشینی به نابرابری درآمدی نشان از آن دارد که افزایش بعد شهری نمی‌تواند توجیه‌کننده تفاوت بالای درآمدی بین مناطق شهری و روستایی در استان‌های ایران باشد. عدم علیت از تفاوت درآمدی به رشد شهرنشینی نشان از آن دارد که علت گسترش شهرنشینی را در عللی فراتر از تفاوت درآمدی جستجو کرد و تفاوت سطح امکانات در ابعاد مختلف و سایر مؤلفه‌های اقتصادی می‌تواند علل مهاجرت از مناطق شهری به روستایی باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

شهرنشینی؛ اختلاف درآمد شهری و روستایی؛ علیت پانلی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Causality between urbanization and urban-rural income gap in Iranian Provinces: Granger causality causality based on Bootstrap approach

نویسندگان [English]

وحید کفیلی¹؛ mohammadsaeed zabihidan¹؛ jalil khodaparast shirazi²

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, Arak University, Arak, Iran

²Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

چکیده [English]

One of the phenomena of the present age is the increase of urban population, which brings with it some advantages and disadvantages. The phenomenon has been much faster in developing countries than in developed ones.The expansion of urbanization in Iran is also happening at a high rate.In this research, we investigate the causality between urbanization and urban-rural income gap in Iran's provinces (1996-2019). According to the cross-sectional correlation test, it was necessary to use Granger causality test in terms of inter-sectional relationship condition. Due to the high efficiency in small samples and the use of Fisher's (1932) meta-analysis, the causality test presented by Emirmahmutoglu & Kose (2011) was used. The results show that at 90% level, the causality of the urbanization rate to the urban-rural income gap is established for nine provinces (Ardebil, Isfahan, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad, Semnan, Golestan, Hormozgan, Kordestan, Sistan and Baluchestan, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari), but the causality of income disparity urbanization rates are only available for four provinces (Ardebil, khorasan, Bushehr and Hormozgan). The results of the meta-analysis made by Fischer (1932) also indicate non-causality in both directions. No significance of causality from urbanization to urban-rural income gap indicates that the urbanization can not justify the high urban-rural income gap in the provinces of Iran. No significance of causality from urban-rural income gap to urbanization indicates that the reason for the expansion of urbanization indicates that reason for the expansion of urbanization goes beyond the urban-rural income gap, and the difference in the level of facilities in different dimensions and other economic components can be the reasons for migration from urban to rural areas.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Urban areas are based on non-agricultural production and have complex and dynamic relationships (Ma et al, 2019: 2). In most communities, the standard of living in urban areas is higher than in rural areas. This difference in standard of living is based on various measurement indicators such as average income, consumption, mortality rate, level of health and level of education and is independent of the level of development of countries (Simler & Dudwick, 2010: 7). The attractiveness of urban life, which is due to the extensive facilities in urban areas, has made people inclined to migrate from rural to urban areas. Despite the lower social benefits of immigration than its private benefits (Mazumdar, 1987: 1097). Especially in developing countries, the rural population migrates from rural to urban areas in order to earn more income and, of course, access to educational, health and other welfare facilities. On the other hand, with the transfer of rural population to urban areas, the urban-rural income gap may change. In the early stages of development, inequality between urban and rural incomes is expected to increase as urbanization increases due to the high rate of productivity growth in urban areas; but from one level onwards, the expansion of urbanization reduces the urban-rural income gap (Cali, 2008: 2). Accordingly, a two-way relationship between urbanization and the urban-rural income gap is to be expected. Like most countries, Iran has always had an upward trend in urbanization. During the years 1966 to 2017, the rate of urbanization in Iran has increased more than 1.9 times and now about 75% of the total population lives in urban areas. The purpose of this study is to test the causal relationship between urbanization and urban-rural income gap for the provinces of Iran using data from 1999 to 2019.
 
 
Methodology
Emirmahmoud and Kose (2011) have presented a causality panel test for heterogeneous panel data using the meta-analysis presented by Fisher (1932) which allows a general conclusion about the whole sections (in this Study of the provinces). This method is a modified lag augmented VAR (LA-VAR) with meta-analysis proposed by Fisher (1932). Simulations performed in the dependence and non-dependence of cross sections show that this method has high power and efficiency in the case of small N and T (Emirmahmoud and Kose, 2011). Due to the sample size in the present study, this test has been used.
 
Results and Discussion
The results show that the causality from urbanization rate to urban-rural income   gap for 9 provinces (Ardabil, Isfahan, Chaharmahal Bakhtiari, Semnan, Sistan and Baluchestan, Kurdistan, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad, Golestan and Hormozgan(; But causality from urban-rural income gap to urbanization established only for four provinces (Ardabil, Khorasan, Bushehr and Hormozgan). The results of the meta-analysis test presented by Fisher (1932) also show that there is no causality on both directions.
 
Conclusion
No significance of causality from urbanization to urban-rural income gap indicates that the urbanization can not justify the high urban-rural income gap in the provinces of Iran. No significance of causality from urban-rural income gap to urbanization indicates that the reason for the expansion of urbanization indicates that reason for the expansion of urbanization goes beyond the difference in income, and the difference in the level of facilities in different dimensions and other economic components can be the reasons for migration from urban to rural areas.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Urbanization, Urban-Rural Income Gap, Panel Causality Test

مراجع

1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2002). The political economy of the kuznets curve. Review of Development Economics, 2, 183 e203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9361.00149
2. Azam, M. (2017). Are Urban-Rural welfare differences growing in India?. IZA Discussion Papers, No. 11174. Available at SSRN 3056860.
3. Baniasadi, M., Zare mehrjouee, M., Varmzyari, H. (2013). Economic factors affecting rural migration in Iran. Agricultural Economics Research, 5(17), 183-196. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20086407.1392.5.17.10.5 [In Persian].
4. Bui, T. P., & Imai, K. S. (2019). Determinants of rural-urban inequality in Vietnam: Detailed decomposition analyses based on unconditional quantile regressions. The journal of development studies, 55(12), 2610-2625. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1536265
5. Calì, M. (2008). Urbanisation, inequality and economic growth: Evidence from Indian states and towns. background note for the World Development Report, London: Overseas Development Institute.
6. Emirmahmutoglu, F., & Kose, N. (2011). Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 870-876.
7. Ghaffari Moghadam, Z & Saboohi, M (2007). Investigating the effective factors on migration from rural to urban areas in Iran. 6th National Conference of Agricultural Economics.[In Persian].
8. Ha, N. M., Le, N. D., & Trung-Kien, P. (2019). The impact of urbanization on income inequality: A study in vietnam. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(3), 146.
9. Henderson, V. (2002). Urbanization in developing countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 17(1), 89-112.
10. Hung, L. W., & Peng, S. K. (2020). Rural-urban migration with remittances and welfare analysis. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 103629.
11. Kónya, L. (2006). Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978-992.
12. Kundu, D., & Pandey, A. (2020). Exploring Rural–Urban Inequality in India in the Post-economic Reform Period. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 11(1), 102-122.
13. Li, Y., Wang, X., Zhu, Q., & Zhao, H. (2014). Assessing the spatial and temporal differences in the impacts of factor allocation and urbanization on urban–rural income disparity in China, 2004–2010. Habitat International, 42, 76-82.
14. Liddle, B. (2017). Urbanization and inequality/poverty. Urban Science, 1(4), 35.
15. Lin, J. Y., & Chen, B. (2011). Urbanization and urban-rural inequality in china: a new perspective from the government’s development strategy. Frontiers of Economics in China, 6(1), 1-21.
16. Ma, L., Liu, S., Fang, F., Che, X., & Chen, M. (2019). Evaluation of urban-rural difference and integration based on quality of life. Sustainable Cities and Society, 101877.
17. Mazumdar, D. (1987). Rural-urban migration in developing countries. Handbook of regional and urban economics, 2, 1097-1128.World Bank. 2008a. World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography World Bank: Washington DC.
18. Nguyen, B. T., Albrecht, J. W., Vroman, S. B., & Westbrook, M. D. (2007). A quantile regression decomposition of urban–rural inequality in Vietnam. Journal of Development Economics, 83(2), 466-490.
19. Sicular, T., Ximing, Y., Gustafsson, B., & Shi, L. (2007). The urban–rural income gap and inequality in China. Review of Income and Wealth, 53(1), 93-126.
20. Simler, K., & Dudwick, N. (2010). Urbanization and Rural-Urban Welfare Inequalities. Draft for discussion, Poverty Reduction and Equity Unit, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://siteresources. worldbank. org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/060310_Simler_Dudwick_Rural Urban_Welfare_Inequalities. Pdf.
21. Sims, C. A., Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1990). Inference in linear time series models with some unit roots. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 113-144.
22. Su, C. W., Liu, T. Y., Chang, H. L., & Jiang, X. Z. (2015). Is urbanization narrowing the urban-rural income gap? A cross-regional study of China. Habitat International, 48, 79-86.
23. Toda, H. Y., & Phillips, P. C. (1994). Vector autoregression and causality: a theoretical overview and simulation study. Econometric reviews, 13(2), 259-285.
24. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of econometrics, 66(1), 225-250.
25. Ye, Z., Qian, L., & Na, Z. (2018). Financial development, urbanization, and urban-rural income disparity: evidence based on Chinese provincial data. Modern Economy, 9(1), 31-60.
26. Yu, C., Xiaohong, C., & Yueru, M. (2010). Urbanization, Urban-Rural Income Gap and Economic Growth: An Empirical Research Based on Provincial Panel Data in China. Statistical Research, 3, 29-36.
27. Zabihidan, Mohammadsaeed. (2019). Investigation and ranking of Iranian provinces in terms of creativity indicators. Rahbord Tosee, 59(15). 104-130. http://rahbord-mag.ir/Article/22904/FullText [In Persian].
28. Zhang, Q., & Chen, R. (2015). Financial development and income inequality in China: An application of SVAR approach. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 774-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.159