İKTİSADİ BÜYÜMENİN DEMOKRATİKLEŞME ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ

Year 2009, Volume: 12 Issue: 21, 56 - 75, 01.06.2009

Selim Başar Şaduman Yıldız

Abstract

Araştırmanın Temeli: Demokratikleşme uzun bir tarihi süreç içinde ortaya çıkmış ve çeşitli evrimler geçirerek kendini geliştirmiştir. 1959 yılına kadar demokrasinin bazı sosyal şartlara bağlı olduğu ileri sürülmüştür. Ancak 1959 yılında, Lipset demokrasinin sadece sosyal şartlara değil iktisadi gelişmenin gerçekleştirilmesi şartına da bağlı olduğunu iddia etmiştir. Bu bağlamda demokratikleşme iktisadi büyüme ile gerçekleşen bir olgudur. Araştırmanın Amacı: Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki iktisadi büyümenin demokratikleşme üzerindeki etkisini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Farklı zaman dilimleri esas alınarak çeşitli modeller kurulmuş ve ampirik olarak sınanmıştır. Modellerde gelir düzeyi dışında demokrasi geleneğini temsil eden değişkenlere de yer verilmiştir. Ayrıca Türkiye’deki demokratik sürecin kesintiye uğradığı dönemler de tahminlerde dikkate alınmıştır. Bulgular ve Sonuçlar: Yapılan tahmin sonuçlarına göre, 1923 – 2003 döneminde Türkiye’de iktisadi büyümenin demokratikleşmeyi pozitif olarak etkilediği, fakat dönem uzunluğu kısaltıldığı zaman söz konusu ilişkinin her dönemde sürdürülemediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Öneriler: Türkiye’de demokratikleşmenin sürdürülebilir hale getirilebilmesi için iktisadi büyümenin süreklilik arz etmesi gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle Türkiye’nin iktisadi büyüme ve kalkınma süreci tekrar gözden geçirilmeli ve iktisadi büyümeyi destekleyici politikalar yeniden düzenlenmelidir. Ayrıca, enflasyon oranlarındaki artış demokratikleşmeyi olumsuz yönde etkilediğinden, enflasyon oranlarındaki artışın önüne geçilerek geleceğe yönelik iktisadi beklentilerdeki belirsizlik azaltılmalıdır. Son olarak toplumda demokratikleşme geleneğinin yaygınlaştırılması sağlanmalıdır. Bu nedenle eğitim ve öğretimin her kademesinde demokratikleşme bilincinin oluşturulmasına yönelik faaliyetler düzenlenmelidir

Keywords

Demokrasi, ekonomik büyüme, KPSS testi

The Effects of Economic Growth on Democratization

Abstract

Fundamental of the Study: Democratization had occured in a long historical process and had developed itself by having different evolutions. It had been claimed that democratization is based on some social conditions until 1959. However, in 1959, Lipset had suggested that democracy is based not only on social conditions but also the condition of realization of economic growth. In this context, democratization is a fact fulfilled with economic growth. Goal of the Study: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of economic growth on democratization in Turkey. Method: In the empirical section of this study, some models are constructed and tested by considering different time horizons. In these models, in addition to income level, some variables are used which represent democratic tradition. Also, the periods in which democratic process was deducted in Turkey are taken into account. Findings and Results: According to the findings, it is concluded that the economic growth affected Turkish democratization in 1923 – 2003 period, on the other hand, when the time horizon is shortened, the mentioned relationship is not continuous. Recommendations: Continuous of economic growth is necessary so that democratization can be sustained in Turkey. Therefore, economic growth and development process of Turkey must be revised and policies supporting economic growth must be arranged again. Also, indefiniteness in the economic expectations directed towards the future must be reduced, because increase in inflation rate affects democratization in a negative way. Finally, it must be provided that tradition of democratization is become widespread in society. Therefore, activities directed towards being constituted of democratization conscious must be arranged in every level of education

Keywords

Democracy, economic growth, KPSS test

References

• Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J. A., Yared, P. (2005). Income and democracy. NBER Working Paper Series, 11205, 1-64.
• Alesina, A., Özler, S., Roubini, N., Swagel, P. (1996). Political insability and economic growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 189-211.
• Alfaro, J. A. (2002). Economic development and democracy: can modernization theory be upheld in central america?. 2. Revista de Ciencias Economicas, Universidad de Costa Rica, XX (1). (22.06.2007).
• Arat, Z. F. (1988). Democracy and economic development: modernization theory revisite. Comparative Politics, 21 (1), 21–36.
• Arat, Z. F. (1991). Democracy and human rights in developing countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
• Banks, A. S. (1994). Cross-polity time-series data archive. Binghamton NY: State University of New York.
• Barro, R. J. (1999). Determinants of democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 107 (6), 158–83.
• Başar, S., Temurlenk, M., S. (2007). Çevreye uyarlanmış kuznets eğrisi: Türkiye üzerine bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21 (1), 1–12.
• Beetham, D. (1994). Defining and measuring democracy. London.
• Bernhagen, P. (2001). Economic development and democracy in latin america: a replication and extension. (12.10.2006).
• Boix, C., Stokes, S. C. (2003). Endogenous democratization. World Politics, 55, 517-49.
• Bollen, K. A. (1979). Political democracy and the timing of development. American Socialical Review, 44, 572–87.
• Bollen, K. A. (1993). Liberal democracy: validity and method factors in cross- national measures. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1207
• Burkhart, R. E., Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1994). Comparative democracy: the economic development thesis. American Political Science Review, 88 (4), 903–10.
• Coleman, J. S. (1960). Conclusion: the political systems of the developing area. in Almond, G. A., Coleman, J. S., eds., The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 532-81’den aktaran Arat, Z. F. (1988), Democracy and development: modernization theory revisited. Comparative Politics, 21 (1), 22.
• Coppedge, M., Wolfgang, H. (1990). Measuring polyarchy. Studies on Comparative Internatioal Development, 25, 51-72.
• Cutright, P. (1963). National political development: measurement and analysis. American Sociological Review, 28, 253–64.
• Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Epstein, D. L. (2006). Democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 50 (3), 1–33.
• Ertek, T. (1996). Ekonometriye giriş. 2. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
• Freedom House (2007). Freedom in the world, 07> (08.02.2007).
• Freedom House (2006). Freedom in the world country ratings (1972 – 2006)
• (25.09.2006).
• Gasiorowski, M. J. (1996). An overview of the political regime change dataset. Comparative Political Studies, 29, 469-483.
• Glasure, Y. U., Lee, A., Norris, J. (1999). Level of economic development and political democracy revisited. IAER, 5 (4), 466–77.
• Gould A. C., Maggio, A. J. (2003). Political regimes and economic development: a model of reference - dependent choices and experimental data. f> (18.03.2007).
• Gurr, T. R. (1974). Persistence and change in political systems, 1800-1971. American Political Science Review, 74 (December): 1482-1504.
• Gurr, T. R. (1990). Polity II: political structures and regime change, 1800–1986. Ann Arbor: ICPSR.
• Hadenius, A. (1992). Democracy and development, Cambridge.
• Helliwell, J. F. (1992). Empirical linkages between democracy and economic growth. NBER Working Paper, No: 4066.
• Helliwell, J. F. (1994). Empirical linkages between democracy and economic growth. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 225–48.
• Huntington, S. (1991). The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press.
• Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton University Press’den aktaran Granato, J., Inglehart, R.,Leblang, D. (1996), Culturel values, stable democracy, and economic development: A reply. American Journal of Political Science, 40 (3)
• Inkeles, A. (1991). On measuring democrac. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
• Jackman, R. W.(1973). On the relation of economic development to democratic performance. American Journal of Political Science, 17( 3), 611–21.
• Jaggers, K., Gurr, T. R. (1995). Tracking democracies third wave with the polity ııı data. Journal of Peace Research, 32, 469-484.
• Kim, C. L. (1971). Socio-economic development and political democracy in japanese prefectures. The American Political Science Review, 65 (1), 184–6.
• Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root, how sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of Econometrics, 54, 159-78.
• Landman, T. (1999). Economic development and democracy: the view from latin america. Political Studies, XLVII, 607–26.
• Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53, 69–105.
• Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man. London.
• Londragen, J. B., Poole, K. T. (1996). Does high ıncome promote democracy. World Politics, 49, 1-30.
• Maier, H. (1985). Zur neueren Geschichte des demokratiebegriff, in: mnier. H., Pölitische Wissenschaft in Deutscland, München/Zürich, 189-218’den aktaran Schmidt, M. G. (2001) Demokrasi kuramlarına giriş. Çev. Köktaş, M. E., Ankara: Vadi Yayınları, 256.
• Marshall, M. G., Jaggers K. (2002). Polity IV project: political regime characteristics and transitions. 1800 – 2002: Dataset users’ manual.Maryland: University of Maryland, (18.09.2006).
• Milanovic, B. (2005). Relationship between ıncome and emergence of democracy reexamined, 1820 – 2000: a non-parametric approach. (22.01.2007).
• Monshipouri, M., Samuel, A. (1995). Development and democracy in pakistan: tenuous or plausible nexus?. Asian Survey, 35 (11), 973–89.
• Muller, E. N. (1995). Economic determinants of democracy. American Sociological Review, 60 (6), 966–82.
• Neubauer, D. E. (1967). Some conditions of democracy. The American Political Science Review, 6 (4), 1002–9.
• Poe, S. C., Tate, C. N. (1994). Repression of human rights to personal integryt in the 1980s: a global analysis. American Political Science Review, 88, 853- 72.
• Polity IV Project (2006). Dataset users’ manual, (19.06.2006).
• Przeworski, A., Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: theories and facts. World Politics, 49 (2), 155-83.
• Refik, H. (1947). Demokrasi nedir? İstanbul.
• Schmidt, M. G. (2001). Demokrasi kuramlarına giriş. Çev. Köktaş, M. E., Ankara: Vadi Yayınları.
• Sevüktekin, M., Nargeleçekenler, M. (2005). Zaman serisi analizi. İzmir: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Sussman, L. R. (1982). The continuing struggle for freedom of ınformation. In Raymond D. Gastil (Ed.), Freedom in the World, 1982 (pp. 101-119). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
• Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, İstatistik Göstergeler 1923 – 2005, (10.06.2007).
• Türkkan, E. (1996). Ekonomi ve demokrasi. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
• Vanhanen, T. (1997). Prospects of democracy: a study of 172 countries. London and New York.