The Relationship Between Geographical Location and Institutional Development: Spatial Econometric Analysis for EU Countries

Abstract

Institutions are very important foreconomic and social development since they directly affect individual behaviors. Institutional economists argue that the effectiveness of institutions accelerates economic growth. There are many historical, social and economic factors that determine the level of institutional development. In this study, the effect of the geographical location of the countries on the level of institutional development will be empirically examined. In this direction, the effect of geographical location on the level of institutional development will be analyzed by using 2018 data from 27 European Union (EU) countries. The Rule of Law Index was used as an indicator of institutional development in the analysis. The distance of the countries to each other was taken as a geographical factor. In addition, as control variables, education index, real national income per capita and unemployment rate were included in the model. The analysis revealed that there is a positive interaction between the institutional development levels of the countries and the institutional development level of the neighboring countries. Similarly, as per capita income increases, the rule of law index also increases. It was determined that the level of unemployment was not in a statistically significant relationship with the level of institutional development. Institutional development increases as the level of education increases. As a result, institutional development is increasing in EU countries, geography, countries neighboring countries with a high level of institutional development. In addition, the increase in income and education level increases the level of institutional development.

Keywords

• Spatial Econometry
• European Union
• Spatial Lag Model
• Spatial Eror Model
• Institutional Development
• Geographical Location

Coğrafi Konum ve Kurumsal Gelişmişlik İlişkisi: AB Ülkeleri için Mekansal Ekonometri Analizi

Abstract

Kurumlar birey davranışlarını doğrudan etkilediği için, ekonomik ve sosyal gelişme açısından oldukça önemlidir. Kurumsal iktisatçılar kurumların etkinliğinin ekonomik büyümeyi hızlandırdığını savunur. Kurumsal gelişmişlik düzeyini belirleyen tarihsel, soysal ve ekonomik birçok faktör bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, ülkelerin coğrafi konumunun kurumsal gelişmişlik düzeyleri üzerindeki etkisi ampirik olarak incelenecektir. Bu doğrultuda 27 Avrupa Birliği (AB)’ne ülkesinin 2018 verileri kullanılarak, coğrafi konumun kurumsal gelişmişlik düzeyine etkisi analiz edilecektir. Analizde hukukun üstünlüğü indeksi kurumsal gelişmişlik göstergesi olarak kullanılmıştır. Coğrafi faktör olarak ülkelerin birbirine olan uzaklıkları alınmıştır. Ayrıca kontrol değişkeni olarak, eğitim endeksi, kişi başı gelir ve işsizlik oranı model dahil edilmiştir. Analiz ülkelerin kurumsal gelişmişlik seviyesi ile komşu ülkelerin kurumsal gelişmişlik seviyesi arasında pozitif bir etkileşim olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Benzer şekilde kişi başına gelir arttıkça, hukukun üstünlüğü endeksini de artmaktadır. İşsizlik düzeyinin kurumsal gelişmişlik düzeyi ile istatiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki içinde olmadığı saptanmıştır. Eğitim düzeyi arttıkça kurumsal gelişmişlik artmaktadır. Sonuç olarak AB ülkelerinde, coğrafya, yüksek kurumsal gelişmişlik düzeyine sahip olan ülkelere komşu olan ülkelerde de kurumsal gelişmişlik artmaktadır. Ayrıca gelir ve eğitim düzeyinin artması kurumsal gelişmişlik düzeyini arttırmaktadır.

Keywords

• Mekansal Gecikme Modeli
• Mekansal Hata Modeli
• Kurumsal Gelişmişlik
• Coğrafi Konum
• Avrupa Birliği
• Kurumsal Gelişmişlik, Coğrafi Konum, Mekansal Ekonometri, Avrupa Birliği, Mekansal Gecikme Modeli, Mekansal Hata Modeli

References

1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J., & Thaicharoen, Y. (2003). Institutional causes, macroeconomic symptoms: Volatility, crises and growth. Journal of monetary economics, 50(1), 49-123.
2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2005a). The rise of Europe: Atlantic trade, institutional change, and economic growth. American economic review, 95(3), 546-579.
3. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005b). Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth. Handbook of economic growth, 1, 385-472.
4. Ahmad, M., & Hall, S. G. (2022). The growth effects of economic and political institutions: New evidence from spatial econometrics analysis using historical-based institutional matrix. Economic Change and Restructuring, 1-32.
5. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Springer Science & Business Media.
6. Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical analysis, 27(2), 93-115.
7. Anselin, L. (1996). The Moran scatterplot as an ESDA tool to assess local instability in spatial association. Spatial analytical perspectives on GIS (ss. 111-126). Routledge.
8. Anselin, L. (2001). Spatial econometrics. A companion to theoretical econometrics, 310330.

9. Anselin, L., Bera, A. K., Florax, R. & Yoon, M. J. (1996) Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26, 77104
10. Anselin, L., & Bera, A. K. (1998). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Handbook of applied economic statistics, 237(5).
11. Anselin, L., & Getis, A. (1992). Spatial statistical analysis and geographic information systems. The Annals of Regional Science, 26(1), 19-33.
12. Anjum, N., & Perviz, Z. (2016). Effect of trade openness on unemployment in case of labour and capital abundant countries. Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), 5(1), 44-58.
13. Ashby, N. J. (2007). Economic freedom and migration flows between US states. Southern Economic Journal, 73(3), 677-697.
14. Ashraf, J., Luo, L., & Khan, M. A. (2022). The Spillover Effects of Institutional Quality and Economic Openness on Economic Growth for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries. Spatial Statistics, 47, 100566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2021.100566
15. Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. The quarterly journal of economics, 106(2), 407-443.
16. Barro, R. J. (1994). Democracy & Growth. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA.
17. Bologna, J., Young, A. T., & Lacombe, D. J. (2016). A spatial analysis of incomes and institutional quality: Evidence from US metropolitan areas. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(1), 191-216.
18. Borsky, S., & Kalkschmied, K. (2019). Corruption in space: A closer look at the world’s subnations. European Journal of Political Economy, 59, 400-422.
19. Castelló-Climent, A. (2008). On the distribution of education and democracy. Journal of Development Economics, 87(2), 179-190.
20. Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2000). Property rights, political rights, and the development of poor countries in the post-colonial period. World Bank Working Papers.
21. Donfouet, H. P. P., Jeanty, P. W., & Malin, E. (2018). Analysing spatial spillovers in corruption: A dynamic spatial panel data approach. Papers in Regional Science, 97, S63-S78.
22. Easterly, W., & Levine, R. (1998). Troubles with the neighbours: Africa’s problem, Africa’s opportunity. Journal of African economies, 7(1), 120-142.
23. Elhorst, J. P. (2010). Applied spatial econometrics: Raising the bar. Spatial economic analysis, 5(1), 9-28.
24. Eurostat (2022). The Europen Commission. Erişim Tarihi: 20.04.2022 https://www.ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tipsun20.
25. Faber, G., & Gerritse, M. (2012). Foreign determinants of local institutions: Spatial dependence and openness. European Journal of Political Economy, 28(1), 54-63.
26. Ganau, R. (2017). Institutions and economic growth in Africa: A spatial econometric approach.
27. Glaeser, E. L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Do institutions cause growth? Journal of economic Growth, 9(3), 271-303.
28. Gumprecht, D. (2005). Spatial Methods in Econometrics: An Application to R&D Spillovers. 17.
29. Hall, J. C., Lacombe, D., & Shaughnessy, T. M. (2015). Economic Freedom and Economic Growth Across US States: A Spatial Panel Data Analysis. West Virginia Univ., Department of Economics.
30. Hall, J. C., & Sobel, R. S. (2008). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and regional differences in economic growth. Southern Journal of Entrepreneurship, 1(1).
31. Hao, Y., & Liu, Y.-M. (2016). The influential factors of urban PM2.5 concentrations in China: A spatial econometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1443-1453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.005
32. Islam, N. (1995). Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(4), 1127-1170. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946651
33. Khodapanah, M., Dehghan Shabani, Z., Akbarzadeh, M. H., & Shojaeian, M. (2020). Spatial spillover effects of corruption in Asian countries: Spatial econometric approach. Regional Science Policy & Practice.
34. LeSage, J. P. (2014). What regional scientists need to know about spatial econometrics. Available at SSRN 2420725.
35. LeSage, J. P., & Pace, R. K. (2014). Interpreting spatial econometric models. İçinde Handbook of regional science (ss. 1535-1552). Springer.
36. LeSage, J., & Pace, R. K. (2009). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
37. Mulholland, S. E., & Hernández-Julián, R. (2019). Does economic freedom lead to selective migration by education? Journal of regional analysis & policy, 43(1), 65-87.
38. Nayebyazdi, A. (2017). The relationship between democracy and economic growth in Muslim MENA countries (Spatial econometric approach). Journal of Smart Economic Growth, 2(3), 123-135.
39. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97
40. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press.
41. North, D. C., & Thomas, R. P. (1973). The rise of the western world: A new economic history. Cambridge University Press.
42. Özveren, E. (2007), Kurumsal İktisat. İstanbul:İmge
43. Peiró-Palomino, J., Picazo-Tadeo, A. J., & Rios, V. (2020). Well-being in European regions: Does government quality matter? Papers in Regional Science, 99(3), 555-582.
44. Rodrik, D. (2000). Institutions for High-Quality Growth: What They are and How to Acquire Them (NBER Working Paper Sy 7540). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/nbrnberwo/7540.htm
45. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of economic growth, 9(2), 131-165.
46. Slesman, L., Baharumshah, A. Z., & Ra’ees, W. (2015). Institutional infrastructure and economic growth in member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Economic Modelling, 51, 214-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.08.008
47. Sun, H., Edziah, B. K., Sun, C., & Kporsu, A. K. (2021). Institutional quality and its spatial spillover effects on energy efficiency. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 101023.
48. UNDP (2022). Human Development Reports. The United Nations Development Programme. Erişim Tarihi: 20.04.2022. https://www.data.undp.org/explore-all-data.
49. WDI (2022). World Development Indicators . The World Bank. Erişim Tarihi: 20.04.2022. https://www.databank.worldbank.org/indicator.
50. WGI (2022).The Worldwide Governance . The World Bank. Erişim Tarihi: 20.04.2022. http://www.info.worldbank.org/governance/WGI.
51. Wolf, C. (1955). Institutions and economic development. The American Economic Review, 45(5), 867-883.
52. Zallé, O., & Ouédraogo, I. M. (2021). Spillover effects of corruption and democracy on territorial attractiveness of foreign direct investment in sub-Saharan Africa. African Development Review, 33 (4), 756-769.