Politik İstikrarın Bedeli: Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomilerinde Politik İstikrar, Gelir Eşitsizliği ve Dijitalleşme Bağlantısı

Abstract

Gelir eşitsizliği, Adam Smith’in piyasa mekanizmalarından Karl Marx’ın sistemik eleştirisine kadar iktisadi düşüncede temel bir tartışma konusu olmaya devam etmektedir. Amartya Sen tarafından “özgürlük kısıtlaması” olarak yeniden tanımlanan bu olgu, dijitalleşmeyle birlikte yeni boyutlar kazanmıştır. Bu çalışma, eşitsizliğin kurumsal yapıları şekillendiren çok boyutlu bir faktör olduğu varsayımıyla, siyasi istikrar, gelir eşitsizliği ve dijitalleşme arasındaki dinamik etkileşimleri incelemektedir. Bu çalışmada 23 gelişmekte olan piyasa ekonomisine ait 1996–2023 dönemi verileri kullanılarak, Dumitrescu–Hurlin nedensellik testi ile etki-tepki fonksiyonları (IRF) ve varyans ayrıştırma (FEVD) analizleriyle desteklenen bir panel vektör otoregresyon (Panel VAR) modeli uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, dijitalleşmenin gelir eşitsizliği üzerinde doğrudan yıkıcı bir etkisi olmadığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, eşitsizliğin siyasi istikrarsızlığı tetiklediğini öne süren Göreli Yoksunluk Teorisi’nin hipotezi de bu örneklem kapsamında desteklenmemektedir. Buna karşılık, siyasi istikrarın gelir eşitsizliğini artırdığı ve eşitsizliğin varyansının %29,1’inin siyasi istikrar şoklarıyla açıklandığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuç, kapsayıcı olmayan kurumsal yapılarda siyasi istikrarın, ekonomik elitlerin gelir dağılımını kendi lehlerine şekillendirmelerini kolaylaştırarak eşitsizliği derinleştirebileceğine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Gelir Eşitsizliği
• Dijitalleşme
• Politik İstikrar
• Göreli Yoksunluk Teorisi
• Beceri Yanlı Teknolojik Değişim Hipotezi

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma etik kurul izni gerektiren analizleri kapsamadığından etik kurul onayı gerektirmemektedir. Yazar açısından ya da üçüncü taraflar açısından çalışmadan kaynaklı çıkar çatışması bulunmamaktadır. yazar, sunduğu makalenin orijinal olduğunu; başka bir yerde yayınlanmak üzere verilmediğini, daha önce yayınlamadığını, eğer, tümüyle ya da bir bölümü yayınlandı ise yukarıda adı geçen dergide yayınlanabilmesi için gerekli her türlü iznin alındığını ve orijinal telif hakkı devir formu ile birlikte İktisadi Araştırmalar Dergisi Editörlüğüne gönderildiğini garanti eder.

THE PRICE OF POLITICAL STABILITY: THE NEXUS OF POLITICAL STABILITY, INCOME INEQUALITY AND DIGITALIZATION IN EMERGING MARKET ECONOMIES

Abstract

Income inequality remains a foundational debate in economic thought, ranging from Adam Smith’s market mechanisms to Karl Marx’s systemic critique. Redefined by Amartya Sen as a "freedom constraint," this phenomenon has gained new dimensions through digitalization. This study examines the dynamic interactions between political stability, income inequality, and digitalization, assuming inequality is a multidimensional factor shaping institutional structures. Using data from 23 Emerging Market Economies (1996-2023), a Panel Vector Autoregression (Panel VAR) model was applied, supported by Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality, Impulse Response Functions (IRF), and Variance Decomposition (FEVD) analyses in this study. Findings indicate that digitalization does not have a direct disruptive effect on income inequality. Furthermore, the Relative Deprivation Theory’s hypothesis—that inequality triggers political instability—is not supported in this sample. Conversely, political stability was found to increase income inequality, explaining 29.1% of its variance. This suggests that within non-inclusive institutions, political stability can facilitate economic elites in shaping distribution to their advantage, thereby deepening inequality.

Keywords

• Income Inequality
• Digitalization
• Political Stability
• Relative Deprivation Theory
• Skill-Biased Technological Change Hypothesis

Ethical Statement

This research does not require ethics committee approval as it does not involve analyses requiring ethics committee approval. There is no conflict of interest arising from the study on the part of the author or third parties. The author guarantees that the submitted article is original; it has not been submitted for publication elsewhere, has not been published previously, and if it has been published in whole or in part, all necessary permissions have been obtained for its publication in the aforementioned journal and it has been submitted to the Editorial Board of the Journal of Economic Research together with the original copyright transfer form.

References

1. Acemoglu, D. (2002). Technical change, inequality, and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(1), 7-72. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.40.1.7.
2. Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (pp. 1043-1171). London: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02410-5
3. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.3.
4. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty: Why nations fail. New York: Crown Publishers.
5. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1996). Income distribution, political instability, and investment. European Economic Review, 40(6), 1203-1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(95)00030-5.
7. Andrews, D. W. K., & Lu, B. (2001). Consistent model and moment selection procedures for GMM estimation with application to dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 101(1), 123–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(00)00077-4.
8. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968.

9. Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2006). The polarization of the U.S. labor market. American Economic Review, 96(2), 189-194. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282806777212620.
10. Cederman, L. E., Weidmann, N. B., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2011). Horizontal inequalities and ethnonationalist civil war: A global comparison. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 478-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000207.
11. Demirguc-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S., & Hess, J. (2018). The global findex database 2017: Measuring financial inclusion and the fintech revolution. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1259-0.
12. Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014.
13. Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595.
14. Graetz, G., & Michaels, G. (2018); Robots at work. The Review of Economics and Statistics 100(5), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00754.
15. Griliches, Z. (1969). Capital-skill complementarity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 51(4), 465–468. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926439.
16. Gurr, T. R. (1971). Why men rebel (3rd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
17. Heilbroner, R. L. (1999). The worldly philosophers: The lives, times, and ideas of the great economic thinkers (7th ed). New York: Touchstone.
18. Hellman, J. S., Jones, G., & Kaufmann, D. (2003). Seize the state, seize the day: state capture and influence in transition economies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(4), 751-773. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jce.2003.09.006.
19. Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., & Rosen, H. S. (1988). Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica, 56(6), 1371-1395. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913103.
20. Howard, P. N., & Muzammil M. H. (2013), Democracy’s fourth wave? Digital media and the Arab spring. New Yrok: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199936953.003.0001.
21. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7.
22. International Monetary Fund. (2024). World economic outlook, April 2024: Steady but slow: Resilience amid divergence. Retrieved from: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2024/04/16/world-economic-outlook-april-2024.
23. Kalecki, M. (1943). Political aspects of full employment. The Political Quarterly, 14(4), 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1943.tb01016.x.
24. Katz, L. F., & Murphy, K. M. (1992). Changes in relative wages, 1963-1987: Supply and demand factors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(1), 35-78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118323.
25. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper, No. WPS 5430. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/3913.
26. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J., (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.
27. Love, I., & Zicchino, L. (2006). Financial development and dynamic investment behavior: Evidence from panel VAR. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 46(2), 190-210. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.qref.2005.11.007.
28. Lütkepohl, H. (2005). New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. İktisadi Araştırmalar Dergisi / Journal of Economic Research 51
29. North, Douglass C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678.
30. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
31. Østby, G. (2008). Polarization, horizontal inequalities and Violent civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 45(2), 143-162. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27640647.
32. Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41-72. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2006.0022.
33. Sen, A. (1987). Equality of what?. In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), Liberty, equality and law: Selected tanner lectures on moral philosophy (pp. 137–162). Cambridge: The Press Syndicate. https:// tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/s/sen80.pdf.
34. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred Knopf.
35. Sen, A. (2006). Inequality reexamined. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Sims, C. A. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica, 48(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912017.
37. Stewart, F. (2008). Horizontal inequalities and conflict: An introduction and some hypotheses. In F. Stewart (Ed.), Horizontal inequalities and conflict: Understanding group violence in multiethnic societies (pp. 3-24). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582729_1.
38. Stiglitz, J. E. (2015). Eşitsizliğin bedeli: Bugünün bölünmüş toplumu geleceğimizi nasıl tehlikeye atıyor? (O. İşer, Ed.). İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık.
39. Tinbergen, J. (1974). Substitution of graduate by other labor. Kyklos, 27(2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1974.tb01903.x.
40. Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (2012). Economic development (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
41. Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012), Social Media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir square. Journal of Communication 62(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1460-2466.2012.01629.X.
42. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
43. United Nations Development Programme. (2022a). Human development report 2021-2022: Uncertain times, unsettled lives: Shaping our future in a transforming world. Retrieved from: https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2021-22.
44. United Nations Development Programme (2022b). 2022 special report on human security, New threats to human security in the anthropocene: Demanding greater solidarity. Retrieved from: https://hdr.undp.org/content/2022-special-report-human-security.
45. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In Rick H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). London: Sage Publications.
46. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why greater equality make societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
47. World Bank. (2011). World development report 2011: Conflict, security, and development. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/4389.
48. World Bank. (2019). World development report 2019: The changing nature of work. Retrieved from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2019.
49. World Bank. (2016). World development report 2016: Digital dividends. Retrieved from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016.
50. Wood, E. M. (2003). Empire of capital. New York: Verso.