Year 2020, Volume 7 , Issue 2, Pages 348 - 363 2020-08-26

Kurumlar, Cinsiyet ve Yolsuzluk İlişkisi: Merkezi ve Doğu Avrupa Ülkeleri Üzerine Panel VAR Analizi
Institutions, Gender and Corruption Relations: Panel VAR Analysis on Central and Eastern Europe Countries

Pınar ÇUHADAR [1]


Yolsuzluk, özel çıkarlar elde etmek için kamu makamlarının bir birey veya grup tarafından suiistimal edilmesidir. Literatürde kadın ve erkeklerin cinsiyetlerine özgü davranış kalıplarına sahip olduğu ve bu davranış kalıplarının yolsuzluk yapmaya eğilimi etkilediği tartışılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı sosyalist yönetim döneminde yolsuzluğun yüksek düzeylere eriştiği ve rejim değişimi sonrası geçmiş kurumların etkisinin sürdüğü Merkezi ve Doğu Avrupa ülkelerinde liberal demokratik kurumlar, cinsiyet ve yolsuzluk arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Çalışmada kadınların güçlendirilmesi, parlamentodaki kadınların temsil oranı ve liberal demokratik kurumların kamudaki yolsuzlukla ilişkisi panel VAR analizi araştırılmıştır. Analiz neticesinde Merkezi ve Doğu Avrupa ülkelerinde cinsiyet ve yolsuzluk arasında Granger nedensellik bulunamazken, bulgular liberal demokratik kurumlarla yolsuzluklar arasında ilişki olduğunu desteklemektedir.
Corruption is the abuse of public office for private gains by indivudials or groups. It is discussed in the current literature that women and men have behavioural patterns related to their gender and these patterns’ can affect their tendency towards corruption. The aim of this study is to seek a gender-and corruption relation in Central and Eastern European Countries where there was a high level of corruption during socialist regimes accompanied with the sustaining imression of past institutions. The study applied panel VAR (vector autoregressive) analysis to examine women’s empowerment and the representation of women in parliament and liberal democratic institutions, and their linkages with corruption. As a result of the analysis, even if Granger causality is not found between gender and corruption in Central and Eastern European countries, findings support relations between liberal democratic institutions and corruption.  
  • ABRIGO, Michael, R.M. & LOVE, I. (2015). Estimation of panel vector autoregression in Stata: A package of programs. Erişim tarihi:12.10.2019, http://paneldataconference2015.ceu.hu/Program/Michael-Abrigo.pdf .
  • AKHMETOVA, E. (2014). Women and corruption. Islam and Civilisiation Renewal, Vol. 5 (2) , 273-276.
  • ALATAS,V., CAMERON, L., CHAUDHURI A., ERKAL, N.& GANGADHARAN, L. (2008). Gender, culture, and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 75 (3), 663-680.
  • BARNES, T., D.& BEAULİEU, E. (2014). Gender stereotypes and corruption: How candidates affect perceptions of election fraud. Politics and Gender, Vol. 10, 365–391. doi:10.1017/S1743923X14000221
  • BATORY, A. (2012, January). Why do anti-corruption laws fail in Central Eastern Europe? A target compliance perspective. Regulation & Governance, 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2011.01125.x.
  • BRANISA, B., KLASEN, S.& ZIEGLER, M. (2010). Why we should all care about social institutions related to gender inequality?. the German Development Economics Conference, Hannover 2010, No. 50.
  • BREUSCH, T., S. & PAGAN, A.,R. (1980). The langrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 47(1), Econometrics Issue, 239-253.
  • BULĞURCU, B.& ÖZDEMİR, P. (2015). Geçiş ekonomilerinde sağlık harcamalarının etkinliği üzerine bir inceleme. Ege Akademik Bakış, Vol. 15 (4), 523-537.
  • CANOVA, F., CICCARELLI, M.(2013). Panel vectors autoregressive models survey. European Central Bank Eurosystem Working Paper Series, No:1507.
  • DOLLAR, D., FISMAN R. & GATTI, R. (1999). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Policy Research Report on Gender and Development Working Paper Series, No. 4.
  • DININIO, P, KPUNDEB, J. S. & LEIKEN, R. (1999). A Handbook of Fighting Corruption Center for Democracy and Governance Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research U.S. Agency for International Development Washington, D.C.
  • ESAREY, J.& SCHWİNDT-BAYER, L., A.(2017). Women’s representation, accountability and corruption in democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 48, 659–690.
  • FRANK, B., LAMBSDORFF, J., G.& BOEHM, F.(2011). Gender and corruption: lessons from laboratory corruption experiments. European Journal of Development Research Vol. 23, 59–71. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2010.47.
  • GOETZ, A., M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force? Development and Change, Vol.38(1), 87–105.
  • GÜRİŞ, B.(2015). Panel Vektör Otoregresif Modeller ve Panel Nedensellik içinde Stata ile Panel Veri Modelleri (Ed. S. Güriş). İstanbul: DER Yayınları, 291-304.
  • JHA, KUMAR, J.& SARANGİ, S. (2018). Women and corruption: What positions must they hold to make a difference? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 151, 219-233.
  • MARTIN, Y., P. (2004).Gender as a social institutions. Social Forces, Vol. 82(4), 1249-1273.
  • NARAYAN, PARESH K., NARAYAN SEEMA (2007). Mean reversion in stock prices: New evidence from panel unit root tests. Studies in Economics and Finance, 24(3): 233-244.
  • ÖZDEMİR ÇUKADAR, P.(2017). Piyasalaşma sürecinin geçiş ekonomilerinde refah devleti anlayışı üzerine etkileri. Maliye Dergisi, Sayı 173, 244-264.
  • RIVAS, F., M. (2008). An experiment on corruption and gender. ThePapers 08/10, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
  • QUALITY OF QOVERMENT INSTITUTE (2019). Standart Data: Time Series. Universtiy of Gothenburg, Sweden. Erişim tarihi:02.11.2019, https://qog.pol.gu.se.
  • SELEIM, A.& BONTIS, N.(2009). The relationship between culture and corruption: A Cross-national study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10(1), 165-184.
  • STENSÖTA, H., WÄNGNERUD, L. & SVENSSON, R. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 28(4), 475–496.
  • SUNG, H.(2012, October). Women in government, public corruption, and liberal democracy: A panel analysis. Crime Law and Social Change, 58, 195-219.
  • SUNG You, J & KHAGRAM, S.(2004). A comparative study of ınequality and corruption. the John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University, Working Paper No:22.
  • TAYLOR, P.,M. & SARNO, L.(1998). The behavior of real exchange rates during the post-Bretton Woods period. Journal of International Economics, Vol. 46, 281–312.
  • TORGLER, B.& VALEV, N., T. (2010, October). Gender and public attitudes toward corruption and tax evasion. Contemporary Economic Policy, 1-28.
  • WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (2018). The Global Gender Gap Report. Cologny/Geneva. Switzerland.
  • YERDELEN TATOĞLU, F.(2020). İleri panel veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
Primary Language tr
Subjects Social
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0001-6302-7735
Author: Pınar ÇUHADAR (Primary Author)
Institution: MARDİN ARTUKLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ
Country: Turkey


Dates

Publication Date : August 26, 2020

APA Çuhadar, P . (2020). Kurumlar, Cinsiyet ve Yolsuzluk İlişkisi: Merkezi ve Doğu Avrupa Ülkeleri Üzerine Panel VAR Analizi . İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi , 7 (2) , 348-363 . DOI: 10.17336/igusbd.657485