Gümrük Tarifeleri, Uluslararası Ticaret ve Ekonomik Büyüme ile Yolsuzluk Arasındaki İlişki: BRICS-T Ülkeleri Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 1061 - 1076, 26.07.2022

Ayberk Şeker

https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.973918

Abstract

Küreselleşme süreciyle birlikte ülkeler arasındaki ekonomik ve ticari ilişkiler giderek artmaktadır. Bu süreçte ülkeler için yolsuzluk problemi hem ekonomik hem de ticari kayıplar yaşamasına neden olan önemli bir sorun haline gelmiştir. Bu doğrultuda, çalışma kapsamında gümrük tarifeleri, uluslararası ticaret ve ekonomik büyümenin yükselen ekonomilerden oluşan BRICS-T ülkelerinde yolsuzluk üzerindeki etkileri analiz edilmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişkiler Westerlund panel eşbütünleşme testleri ile test edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre ihracat, ithalat, gümrük tarifeleri, gayrisafi yurtiçi hâsıla (GSYİH) ve yolsuzluk arasında uzun dönemli ilişkilerin olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişkiler tespit edildikten sonra bu ilişkilerin yönünü ortaya koymak için nedensellik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel nedensellik testi sonuçlarına göre gümrük tarifeleri, ithalat ve gayrisafi yurtiçi hasıladan yolsuzluk faaliyetlerine doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkilerinin bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Yolsuzluk, Gümrük Tarifeleri, Uluslararası Ticaret, Ekonomik Büyüme

The Nexus Between Custom Tariffs, International Trade, Economic Growth and Corruption: An Empirical Investigation on BRICS-T Countries

Abstract

Economic and commercial relations among the countries have increased associated with the globalization. In this process, the problem of corruption for countries has become an important problem that causes both economic and commercial losses. Accordingly, it is analyzed the effects of custom tariffs, international trade and economic growth on corruption in BRICS-T countries that are named emerging economies within the scope of the paper. The long-term relationships between the variables are analyzed with Westerlund panel cointegration tests. According to the results of the analysis, it is determined that there are long-term relationships between exports, imports, custom tariffs, gross domestic product (GDP) and corruption. After determining the long-term relationships between the variables, causality analyses have carried out in order to reveal the direction of these relationships. According to the Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test results, it has been determined that there are unidirectional causality relationships from custom tariffs, imports and gross domestic product to corruption.

Keywords

Corruption, Custom Tariffs, International Trade, Economic Growth

References

• Ades, A. ve Di Tella, R. (1997). The new economics of corruption: A survey and some new results. Political Studies, 45(3), 496-515.
• Algan, N., Aktakas, B. G. ve Tekin, İ. (2014). Toplumsal bir mesele olarak yolsuzluk ve büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. International Conference on Eurasian Economies, 1-10.
• Anderson, J. ve Marcouiller, D. (2002). Insecurity and the pattern of trade: An empirical investigation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(2), 342-352.
• Bai, J., Jayachandran, S., Malesky, E. J. ve Olken, B. A. (2013). Does economic growth reduce corruption? Theory and evidence from Vietnam. NBER Working Paper, 19483, 1-56.
• Bandyopadhyay, S. ve Roy, S. (2007). Corruption and trade protection: Evidence from Panel data. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper, 22A, 1-22.
• Braun, M. ve Di Tella, R. (2004). Inflation, ınflation variability, and corruption. Economics & Politics, 16(1), 77-100.
• Bayar, G. (2010). Türkiye’de yolsuzluk-ekonometrik bir inceleme. Erciyes Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 28, 105-131.
• Berksoy, T. ve Yıldırım, N. E. (2017). Yolsuzluk kavramına genel bir bakış: problemler ve çözüm önerileri. Journal of Awareness, 2(1), 1-18.
• Beverelli, C. ve Ticku, R. (2020). Trade facilitation and tariff evasion. Chapman University Economic Science Institute Working Papers, 20-24, 1-37.
• Breitung, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In B. H. Baltagi (Eds.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels, (pp. 161-178), Amsterdam: JAI Press.
• Breusch, T. S., ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253.
• Broadman, Harry G. ve Recanatini, F. (2001). Seeds of corruption: Do market ınstitutions matter? MOCT-MOST, 11, 359–392.
• Campante, Filipe R., Chor, D. ve Do, Quoch-Anh (2009). Instability and the incentives for corruption. Economics and Politics, 21(1), 42-92.
• Campbell, N. ve Saha, S. (2013). Corruption, democracy and Asia-Pacific countries. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 18(2), 290-303.
• Damania, R., Fredriksson, P. G. ve Mani, M. (2004). The persistence of corruption and regulatory compliance failures: Theory and evidence. Public Choice, 12, 363–390.
• De Jong, E. ve Bogmans, C. (2011). Does corruption discourage international trade? European Journal of Political Economy, 27, 385–398.
• Drenski, A., Hallren, R. ve Lee, J. N. (2019). Tariff evasion in global trade data. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 28(7), 829–842.
• Drury, A. C., Krieckhaus., J. ve Lusztig, M. (2006). Corruption, democracy, and economic growth. International Political Science Review, 27(2), 121–136.
• Dumitrescu, E. I. ve Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
• Dutt, P. (2009). Trade protection and bureaucratic corruption: An empirical investigation. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 42(1), 155-183.
• Dutt, P. ve Traca, D. (2010). Corruption and bilateral trade flows: Extortion or evasion. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(4), 843-860.
• Efeoğlu, R., Azgün, S. ve Emsen, Ö. (2020). Makroekonomik performans göstergelerinin yolsuzluğa etkisi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(3) , 2116-2137.
• Elbahnasavy, N. G. ve Revier, C. F. (2012). The determinants of corruption: Cross-country-panel data analysis. The Developing Economies, 50(4), 311-33.
• Gatti, R. (1999). Corruption and trade tariffs, or a case for uniform tariffs. The World Bank Development Research Group Discussion Paper.
• Gatti, R. (2004). Explaining corruption: Are Open countries less corrupt? Journal of International Development, 16(6), 851-861.
• Gerni, M., Emsen, Ö. S., Özdemir, D. ve Buzdağlı, Ö. (2012). Yolsuzluğun belirleyicileri ve büyüme ile ilişkileri. International Conference on Eurasian Economies, 131-139.
• Gezikol, B. ve Tunahan, H. (2018). The econometric analysis of the relationship between perceived corruption, foreign trade and foreign direct investment in the context of international indices. Alphanumeric Journal, 6(1), 117-132.
• Gil-Pareja, S., Llorca-Vivero, R. ve Martínez-Serrano, J. A. (2019). Corruption and international trade: A comprehensive analysis with gravity. Applied Economic Analysis, 27(79), 3-20.
• Goel, Rajeev K., ve Nelson, Michael A. (2005). Economic freedom versus political freedom: Cross-country influences on corruption. Australian Economic Papers, 44(2), 121-133.
• Graeff, P., ve Mehlkop, G. (2003). The impacts of economic freedom on corruption: Different patterns for rich and poor countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(3), 605-620.
• Hamdi, H. ve Hâkimi, A. (2019). Corruption, FDI, and growth: An empirical investigation into the Tunisian context. The International Trade Journal, 34(4), 415-440.
• Im, К., M. H. Pesaran ve Y. Shin (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53-74.
• Jiankun, L., Bo, M. ve Hongsheng, Z. (2019). Corruption, productivity, and import liberalization in China: A firm-level analysis. Japan External Trade Organization, Institute of Developing Economies Discussion Paper, 748, 1-25.
• Johansen, S. (1988), Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2-3), 231-254.
• Kao, C. ve Chiang, M. H. (2001). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. In: Baltagi, B.H., Fomby, T.B., Carter Hill, R. (Eds.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels; Advances in Econometrics, (pp. 179–222), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Kapetanios, G., Pesaran, M.H. ve Yamagata, T. (2011). Panels with non-stationary multifactor error structures. Journal of Econometrics, 160, 326–348.
• Kaufmann, D. (1997). Corruption: The facts. Foreign Policy, 107, 114–131.
• Kellenberg, D. ve Levinson, A. (2018). Misreporting trade: Tariff evasion, corruption, and auditing standards. Review of International Economic, 27(1), 106-129.
• Knack, S. ve Azfar, O. (2003). Trade intensity, country size and corruption. Economics of Governance, 4(1), 1-18.
• Kolstad, I. ve Wiig, A. (2015). Does democracy reduce corruption? Democratization, 23(7), 1198–1215.
• Konu, A. ve Ata, A.Y. (2016). Yolsuzluk ve ekonomik özgürlük ilişkisi: AB ülkeleri üzerine yatay kesit analizi. Niğde Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 195-207.
• Kotera, G., Okada, K. ve Samreth, S. (2012). Government size, democracy, and corruption: An Empirical investigation. Economic Modelling, 29, 2340–2348.
• Laajaj, R., Eslava, M. ve Kinda, T. (2019), The costs of bureaucracy and corruption at customs: Evidence from the computerization of imports in Colombia. Documento CEDE No. 2019-08, 1-41.
• Lederman, D., Loayza N. ve Soares R. R. (2005). Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter. Economics and Politics, 17(1), 1-35.
• Leff, N. (1964). Economic development through bureaucratic corruption. American Behavioral Scientist, 82, 337–341.
• Lewandowski, P. (2007). PESCADF: stata module to perform pesaran's cadf panel unit root test in presence of cross section dependence. Warsaw School of Economics, Institute for Structural Research. Retrieved from http://fmwww.bc.edu/repec/bocode/p/pescadf.ado/
• Macrae, J. (1982). Underdevelopment and the economics of corruption: A game theory approach. World Development, 10(8), 677–687.
• Maajed, Muhammad T. (2014). Corruption and trade. Journal of Economic Integration, 29(4), 759-782.
• Mauro, P. (1995), Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681-712.
• Mazllami, J. (2019). The impact of human development in corruption mitigation: a comparative analysis between Macedonia and Albania. Economia Aziendale Online, 10(1), 191-202.
• Montinola, G. R. ve Jackman, R. W. (2002). Sources of corruption: A cross-country study. British Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 147-170.
• Musila, J. W. ve Sigue, S. P. (2010). Corruption and international trade: An empirical investigation of African countries. The World Economy, 33(1), 129-146.
• Nye, J. (1967). Corruption and political development: A cost-benefit analysis. American Political Science Review, 61(2), 417–427.
• Pedroni, P. (2001). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. In: Baltagi, B.H., Fomby, T.B., Carter Hill, R. (Eds.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels; Advances in Econometrics, (pp. 93–130), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Pellegrini, L., ve Gerlah, R. (2008). Causes of corruption: A survey of cross-country analyses and extended results. Economics of Governance, 9(3), 245-263.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
• Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50–93.
• Phillips, P. ve Hansen, B. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes. Review of Economic Studies, 57, 99–125.
• Rehman, H. U. ve Naveed, A. (2007). Determinants of corruption and its relation to GDP (A Panel Study). Journal of Political Studies, 12, 27‐59.
• Reinikka, R., ve Svensson, J. (2005). Fighting corruption to improve schooling: Evidence from a newspaper campaign in Uganda. Journal of European Economic Association, 3, 259–267.
• Rock, M. T. (2009). Corruption and democracy. Journal of Development Studies, 45(1), 55-75.
• Rock, M. T. ve Bonnett, H. (2004). The comparative politics of corruption: Accounting for the East Asian paradox in empirical studies of corruption, growth and investment. World Development, 32(6), 999-1017.
• Saha, S. ve Ben Ali, M. S. (2017). Corruption and economic development: New evidence from the Middle Eastern and North African countries. Economic Analysis and Policy 54, 83–95.
• Saikkonen, P. (1991). Asymptotically efficient estimation of cointegration regressions. Econometric Theory, 7, 1–21.
• Sandholtz, W. ve Koetzle, W. (2000). Accounting for corruption: Economic structure, democracy and trade. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 31–50.
• Sandholtz, W., ve Gray, M. M. (2003). International integration and national corruption. International Organization, 57, 761–800.
• Sarvar, S. ve Pervaiz, K. M. (2013). An empirical investigation between trade liberalization and corruption: A panel data approach. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4(3), 179-189.
• Serra, D. (2006). Empirical determinants of corruption: A sensitivity analysis. Public Choice, 126(1), 225–256.
• Shabbir, G. ve Anwar, M. (2008). Determinants of corruption in developing countries. The Pakistan Development Review, 46(4), 751-764.
• Shirazi, M. A. (2011). The impact of corruption on international trade. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 40(1-3), 435-446.
• Stock, J. ve Watson, M. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica, 61, 783–820.
• Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1970) Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model, Econometrica, 38, 311–23.
• Thede, S. ve Gustafson, N. (2012). The multifaceted impact of corruption on international trade. The World Economy, 35(5), 651-666.
• Tosun, M.U. (2003). Yolsuzluğun nedenleri üzerine ampirik bir çalışma. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 5, 125-146.
• Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 211–244.
• Türedi, S. ve Altıner, A. (2016). Economic and political factors affecting corruption in developing countries. International Journal of Economics and Research, 7(1), 120–136.
• Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69, 709–748.
• Yakub, A., Sessu, A., Sjahruddin, H. ve Haryono (2020). Exploring the nexus between foreign aid, corruption and economic growth in ASEAN countries. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(2), 63-83.