Effects of Corruption and Development in Democratization

Year 2021, , 13 - 36, 23.08.2021

Rabia Efeoğlu , Ömer Selçuk Emsen

https://doi.org/10.33399/biibfad.749982

Abstract

The aim of the study is to investigate the effect of the human development index, which is the indicator of economic development, and the corruption perception index, which is an indicator of corruption, on the level of democracy, using the panel ordered qualitative preference method with the data from the 2010-2018 period. While the widespread literature examines the growth and development effects of democracy or corruption, research has been designed in the theoretical perspective, especially in the light of arguments that development will trigger democratization. In this framework, since the dependent variable has ordered numbers, ordered logit model analysis which is one of the ordered qualitative preference models has been conducted for underdeveloped, developing and developed countries. According to the results of the research, it is determined that the improvements in both human development index and corruption perception index in underdeveloped and developed countries nourish democratization. On the other hand, while it is concluded that in developing countries, only the perception index of corruption was more effective at higher levels of democracy and is higher likely to affect the high level of democracy, it is observed that improvements in development did not favor democratization. At this point, the relationship between democratization and economic development in the form of a "u-curve" has been determined.

Keywords

Democracy, development, corruption

Demokratikleşmede Yolsuzluk ve Kalkınmışlığın Etkileri

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı, ekonomik kalkınma göstergesi olan insani gelişme endeksi ile yolsuzluk göstergesi olan yolsuzluk algı endeksinin demokrasi düzeyine etkisi gelişmişlik düzeyi farklılık arz eden ülkeler için 2010-2018 dönemine ait veriler ile panel sıralı nitel tercih yöntemini kullanarak araştırmaktır. Yaygın literatür daha çok demokrasi veya yolsuzluğun büyüme ve kalkınma etkilerini incelerken, teorik perspektifte özellikle kalkınmanın demokratikleşmeyi tetikleyeceğine dair savlar eşliğinde araştırma kurgulanmıştır. Bu çerçevede bağımlı değişkenin sıra sayılar alması nedeniyle azgelişmiş, gelişmekte olan ve gelişmiş ülkeler için sıralı nitel tercih modellerinden sıralı logit model analizi yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonucuna göre az gelişmiş ve gelişmiş ülkelerde hem insani gelişme endeksi hem de yolsuzluk algı endeksindeki iyileşmelerin demokratikleşmeyi beslediği tespit edilmiştir. Buna karşılık gelişmekte olan ülkelerde ise yalnızca yolsuzluk algı endeksinin demokrasinin yüksek düzeylerinde daha etkili ve yüksek demokrasi düzeyini etkileme olasılığının daha yüksek olduğu sonucu elde edilirken, kalkınmadaki iyileşmelerin demokratikleşmeyi olumlulaştırmadığı gözlenmiştir. Bu noktada gelişmişlik düzeyi açısından demokratikleşme ile ekonomik gelişme arasında “u eğrisi” şeklinde bir ilişkinin varlığı tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Demokrasi, kalkınma, yolsuzluk

References

• Acemoğlu, D. & Robinson, J. A. (2020). Dar Koridor: Devletler, Toplumlar ve Özgürlüğün Geleceği (Çev: Y. Taşkın). İstanbul, Doğan Egmont Yayıncılık ve Yapımcılık.
• Akçay, S. (2000). Yolsuzluk, ekonomik özgürlükler ve demokrasi. Muğla Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 1(1), 1-15.
• Akın, H.B. ve Şentürk, E. (2012). Bireylerin mutluluk düzeylerinin ordinal lojistik regresyon analizi ile incelenmesi. Öneri Dergisi, 10 (37), 183-193.
• Aliyu, S. U. R. (2009). “Democracy, Corruption and Economic Development: Evidence From Nigeria”. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), 40-64.
• Arat, Z. F. (1988). Democracy and economic development: modernization theory revisited. Comparative Politics, 21(1), 21-36.
• Balaev, M. (2014). Improving models of democracy: the example of lagged effects of economic development, education, and gender equality. Social Science Research, 46, 169–183.
• Barro, R.J. (1999). Determinants of democracy. Journal of Economic Growth, 1(1), 1-27.
• Benhabib, J., Corvalan, A., & Spiegel, M. M. (2013). Income and democracy: evidence from nonlinear estimations. Economics Letters, 118, 489–492.
• Beşel, F. & Yardımcıoğlu, F. (2013). Demokrasi ve yolsuzluk ilişkisi: seçilmiş Ortadoğu ülkelerinin analizi. Ortadoğu Yıllığı, 445-461.
• Bhattacharyya, S. & Hodler, R. (2010). Natural resources, democracy and corruption. European Economic Review, 54, 608–621.
• Billger, S.M. & Goel, R.K. (2009). Do existing corruption levels matter in controlling corruption? Cross-country quantile regression estimates. Journal of Development Economics, 90, 299–305.
• Bollen, K. A. (1979). Political democracy and the timing of development. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 572-587.
• Brant, R. (1990) Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics, 46, 1171–1178.
• Broadman, H.G. & Recanatini, F. (2000). Seeds of corruption: do market institutions matter?. MOCT-MOST: Economic Policy in Transitional Economies, 11, 359–392.
• Campbell, N. & Saha, S. (2013). Corruption, democracy and Asia-Pacific countries”. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 18(2), 290-303.
• Che, Y., Lu, Y., Tao, Z. & Wang, P. (2013). The impact of income on democracy revisited. Journal of Comparative Economics, 41(1), 159-169.
• Chowdhury, S. K. (2004). The effect of democracy and press freedom on corruption: an empirical test. Economics Letters, 85, 93–101.
• Coase, R. ve Wang, N. (2015). Çin Nasıl Kapitalist Oldu?. (Çev. İ. Yılmaz), Ankara: Tarcan Matbaası.
• Colaresi, M. & Thompson, W, R. (2003). The economic development-democratization relationship: does the outside world matter?. Comparative Political Studies, 36, 381-403.
• Cutright, P. (1963). National political development: measurement and analysis. American Sociological Review, 28 (2), 253-264.
• Dong, B. & Torgler, B. (2011). Democracy, property rights, ıncome equality and corruption. Nota dı Lavoro, 1-23.
• Güvel, E.A. & Ata, A.Y. (2011). Yolsuzluğun sosyo-politik dinamikleri: AB ülkeleri üzerine bir analiz. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 44(1), 155-185.
• Heid, B., Langer, J. & Larch, M. (2012). Income and democracy: evidence from system GMM estimates. Ifo Working Paper, 118, 1-9.
• Hill, K. Q. (2003). Democratization and corruption systematic evidence from the American States. American Politics Research, 31 (6), 613-631.
• Jackman, R.W. (1973). On the relation of economic development to democratic performance. American Journal of Political Science, 17(3), 611-621. Jetter, M., Agudelo, A.M. & Hassan, A.R. (2015). The effect of democracy on corruption: income is key. World Development, 74, 286–304.
• Kalenborn, C. & Lessman, C. (2012). The impact of democracy and press freedom on corruption: conditionality matters. Cesıfo Workıng Paper, No. 3917, 1-23.
• Kim, C. L. (1971). Socio-economic development and political democracy in Japanese prefectures. The American Political Science Review, 65 (1), 184-186.
• Kolstad, I. & Wiig, A. (2015). Does democracy reduce corruption?. Democratization, 23 (7), 1198–1215.
• Kotera, G., Okada, K. & Samreth, S. (2012). Government size, democracy, and corruption: an empirical investigation. Economic Modelling, 29, 2340–2348.
• Lederman, D., Loayza N. & Soares, R.R. (2005). Accountability and corruption: political ınstitutions matter. Economics and Politics, 17 (1), 1-35.
• Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, 53 (1), 69-105.
• Londregan, J.B. & Poole, K.T. (1996). Does high income promote democracy?. World Politics, 49 (1), 1-30.
• Montinola, G.R. & Jackman, R.W. (2002). Sources of corruption: a cross-country study. British Journal of Political Science, 32 (1), 147-170.
• Moral-Benito, E. & Bartolucci, C. (2011). Income and democracy: revisiting the evidence. Documentos de Trabajo, 1115, 1-26.
• Neudorfer, N.S. (2015). Development, democracy and corruption: how poverty and lack of political rights encourage corruption. Journal of Public Policy, 1-37.
• Nielsen, M., & Haugaard, J. (2000). Democracy, corruption, and human development. Approaches to Development, 1-50.
• Nur-tegin, K. & Czap, H.J. (2012). Corruption: democracy, autocracy, and political stability. Economic Analysis & Policy, 42 (1), 51-66.
• Olsen, M.E. (1968). Multivariate analysis of national political development. American Sociological Review, 33 (5), 699-712.
• Özcan, B. (2012). OECD ülkelerinde yolsuzluğun ekonomik belirleyenleri: panel veri analizi. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 62 (2), 253-282.
• Pellegrini, L. & Gerlah, R. (2008). Causes of corruption: a survey of cross-country analyses and extended results. Economics of Governance, 9 (3), 245-263.
• Peyton, K. & Belasen, A.R. (2012). Corruption in emerging and developing economies: evidence from a pooled cross-section. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 48 (2), 29-43.
• Piñeiro, J., Khan, H.A., Melikyan, D. N. & Tamazian, A. (2005). Financial market efficiency, institutions and growth: an international econometric analysis for 1997-2002. Applied Econometrics and International Development. AEID, 5 (2), 27-52.
• Pourgerami, A. (1988). The political economy of development: a cross-national causality test of development-democracy-growth hypothesis. Public Choice, 58 (2), 123-141.
• Ranganathan, S., Nicolis, S.C., Spaiser, V. & Sumpter, D.J.T. (2015). Understanding democracy and development traps using a data-driven approach. Big Data, 3 (1), 22-33.
• Robinson, J. A. (2006). Economic development and democracy. Annual Review Political Science, 9, 503-527. Rock, M.T. (2007). Corruption and democracy. DESA Working paper, 55, 1-18.
• Rock, M.T. (2009). Corruption and democracy. Journal of Development Studies, 45 (1), 55-75.
• Saha, S. & Su, Jen-Je (2012). Investigating the interaction effect of democracy and economic freedom on corruption: a cross-country quantile regression analysis. Economic Analysis & Policy, 42 (3), 389-396.
• Saha, S. (2008). Democracy and corruption: an empirical analysis in a cross-country framework. New Zealand Association of Economist Annual Conference, 9-11 July 2008, Wellington.
• Saha, S., Gounder, R. & Su, Jen-Je (2009). The interaction effect of economic freedom and democracy on corruption: a panel cross-country analysis. Economics Letters, 105 (2), 173-176.
• Sandholtz, W. & Koetzle, W. (2000). Accounting for corruption: economic structure, democracy and trade. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 31-50.
• Serra, D. (2006). Empirical determinants of corruption: a sensitivity analysis. Public Choice, 126 (1), 225–256.
• Shen, C. & Williamson, J.B. (2005). Corruption, democracy, economic freedom, and state strength a cross-national analysis. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46 (4), 327-345.
• Sung, H. E. (2004). Democracy and political corruption: a cross-national comparison. Crime, Law & Social Change, 41, 179-194.
• Tiwari, A. K. (2012). Corruption, democracy and bureaucracy. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 9 (574), 17-28.
• Treisman, D. (2000). “The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study”. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 399–457.
• Türedi, S. & Altıner, A. (2016). Economic and political factors affecting corruption in developing countries. International Journal of Economics and Research, 7 (1), 120-136.
• Yakışık, H. & Çetin, A. (2014). Yolsuzlukların sosyoekonomik belirleyicileri: yatay kesit veri analizi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 28 (3), 205-224.