Kurumsal Kalite ve Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım Girişleri Arasındaki İlişki: OECD Ülkeleri İçin Panel Veri Analizi

Year 2020, Volume: 16 Issue: 29, 2019 - 2044, 30.09.2020

Hüseyin Kutbay

Abstract

Bu çalışmada OECD ülkelerinde kurumsal kalite göstergelerinin (ifade özgürlüğü ve hesap verme sorumluluğu, siyasi istikrar ve şiddet/terörizmin yokluğu, yönetimin etkinliği, düzenlemelerin kalitesi, hukukun üstünlüğü ve yolsuzluğun kontrolü) Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım (DYY) girişleri üzerindeki etkisi 2002-2018 verileri kullanılarak panel veri analizi ile incelenmiştir. Kontrol değişkenler olarak da ticari açıklık ve enflasyon değişkenleri eklenerek 3 ayrı model oluşturulmuştur. Serilerin durağanlıkları Levin, Lin ve Chu (LLC) ve Hadri panel birim kök testleri ile sınanmış ve serilerin düzeyde durağan olduğu belirlenmiştir. Yapılan analizler neticesinde, model 1 için rassal etkiler, model 2 ve model 3 için ise sabit etkiler modelinin uygun olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca modellerin varsayımları sağlayıp sağlamadığı test edilmiş ve varsayımlardan sapmalara karşı geliştirilen Driscoll-Kraay dirençli standart tahmincisi ve Beck- Katz testleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın neticesinde kurumsal kalite göstergelerinden siyasi istikrar ve şiddet/terörizmin yokluğunun, düzenlemelerin kalitesinin ve yolsuzluğun kontrolünün DYY girişleri üzerindeki etkisinin pozitif ve anlamlı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca kontrol değişkenlerden ticari açıklığın DYY girişleri üzerinde pozitif, enflasyonun ise negatif etkisinin olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

kurumsal kalite, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, panel veri analizi, OECD

The Relationship Between Institutional Quality and Foreign Direct Investment Inflows: Panel Data Analysis for OECD Countries

Abstract

In this study, the effect of institutional quality indicators (freedom of expression and accountability, political stability and lack of violence / terrorism, government effectiveness, quality of regulations, rule of law and control of corruption) on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows, in OECD was analyzed by panel data analysis using 2002-2018 data. Three different models were created by adding trade openness and inflation variables as control variables. The stationarities of the series were tested by Levin, Lin and Chu (LLC) and Hadri panel unit root tests and the series were determined to be stationary at the level. As a result of the analyzes, random effects model was found suitable for model 1 and fixed effects model was suitable for model 2 and model 3. In addition, whether the models provide assumptions has been tested and the Driscoll-Kraay resistant standard estimator and Beck-Katz tests have been developed against deviations from the assumptions. As a result of the study, it has been determined that the impact of political stability and the absence of violence / terrorism, the quality of regulations and control of corruption on FDI inflows are positive and significant. It was also determined that trade openness, one of the control variables, had a positive and significant effect on FDI inflows, and inflation had a negative effect.

Keywords

Institutional Quality, Foreign Direct Investment, Panel Data Analysis, OECD

References

• Ahmad, H.M., Ahmed, M.S. ve Atiq, Z. (2018). The impact of quality of institutions on sectoral fdi: evidence from Pakistan. Foreign Trade Review, 53(3), 174-188.
• Aziz, O. G. (2018). Institutional quality and FDI inflows in arab economies. Finance Research Letters, 25, 111–123.
• Babayan, G. (2015). The impact of institutional factors on attracting foreign direct investment flows. Master of Science in Management Engineering, Milano.
• Baltagi, B.H. ve Wu, P.X. (1999). Unequally spaced panel data regressions with ar(1) disturbances. Econometric Theory, 15, 814–823.
• Beck, N. ve Katz, J.N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634-647.
• Belgibayeva, A. ve Plekhanov, A. (2016). Does corruption matter for sources of foreign direct investment?. Birkbeck Working Papers in Economics & Finance, University of London, London, UK.
• Bénassy‐Quéré, A., Coupet, M. ve Mayer, T. (2005). Institutional determinants of foreign direct investment, CEPII, Working Paper No: 5, 1-30.
• Bhargava, A., Franzini, L., ve Narendranathan, W. (1982). Serial correlation and the fixed effects model. The Review of Economic Studies, 49(4), 533-549.
• 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, 239-253.
• Brown, M. B., ve Forsythe, A. B. (1974). The small sample behavior of some statistics which test the equality of several means. Technometrics, 16(1), 129-132.
• Demir, M. A, Bilik, M. ve Aydın Ü. (2018). Effects of political and socio-economic indicators on foreign direct investments: stochastic frontier analysis. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 1078-1096.
• Doğan, E. (2019). Kurumsal kalite ve ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. İstanbul üniversitesi sosyal bilimler enstitüsü: İstanbul.
• Driscoll, J.C., ve Kraay, A.C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549-560.
• Dunning J.H. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 45–66.
• Epaphra, M. ve Massawe, J. (2017). The effect of corruption on foreign direct investment: a panel data study. Turkish Economic Review, 4(1), 19-54.
• Frees, E. W. (1995). Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 69(2), 393- 414.
• Frees, E. W. (2004). Longitudinal and panel data: analysis and applications in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
• Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of The American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675-701.
• Globerman, S. ve Shapiro, D. (2002). Global foreign direct investment flows: the role of governance infrastructure. World Development, 30(11), 1899-1920.
• Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 3(2), 148- 161.
• Hausman, J.A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics, econometrica. Journal of The Econometric Society, 1251-1271.
• Jabri, A. (2015). Institutional determinants of foreign direct investment in mena region: panel co- integration analysis, The Journal of Applied Business Research, 31(5), 2001-2012.
• Jude, C. ve Levieuge, G. (2017). Growth effect of foreign direct investment in developing economies: the role of institutional Quality. The World Economy, 40(4), 715-742.
• Karau, J.N. ve Mburu, T.K. (2016). Institutional, governance and economic factors influencing foreign direct investment inflows in east africa. Journal of Economics and Development Studies, 4(3), 87-98.
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., ve Zoido-Lobatón, P. (1999). Aggregating governance indicators. World Bank Publications, 2195.
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. ve Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues, Policy Research Working Paper Series, 5430, The World Bank.
• Khan, H., Khan, I., Jan, M.S., Jandan, A.H. ve Khan, S. (2019). Does good governance matter fdi inflow? evidence from india. Modern Economy, 10, 1526-1538.
• Kirkpatrick, C., Parker, D. ve Zhang, F.Y. (2006). Foreign direct investment in infrastructure in developing countries: does regulation make a difference?. Transnational Corporations, 15(1), 143-171.
• Klimek, A. (2013). Institutions and outward foreign direct investment. Helsinki: European Trade Study Group.
• Kurul, Z. ve Yalta, A. Y. (2017). Relationship between institutional factors and fdi flows in developing countries: New evidence from dynamic panel estimation. Economies, 5(17), 1-10.
• Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. Ingram Olkin, Harold Hotelling, et alia. In Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling. Stanford University, 278-292.
• Levin, A., Lin, C.F., ve Chu, C.S.J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
• Özşahin, Ş. (2016). Kurumsal kalite doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar için ne kadar önemli? türkiye üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Yaşar Üniversitesi Dergisi, 11(44), 251-262.
• Peres, M., Ameer, W. ve Xu, H. (2018). The impact of institutional quality on foreign direct investment inflows: evidence for developed and developing countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31(1), 626- 644.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics, Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0435.
• Sabir, S., Rafique, A. ve Abbas, K. (2019). Institutions and fdi: evidence from developed and developing countries. Financial Innovation, 5(8), 1-20.
• Tarı, R. (2016). Ekonometri, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Vakfı Yayınları: Kocaeli.
• Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2012). Panel veri ekonometrisi. Beta Yayınları: İstanbul.
• Tatoğlu, F.Y. (2017). Panel zaman serileri analizi. Beta Yayınları: İstanbul.
• Topal M. H. ve Gül, Ö. S. (2016). The effect of country risk on foreign direct investment: a dynamic panel data analysis for developing countries. Journal of Economics Library, 3(1), 141-155.
• Ullah, I. ve Khan, M.A. (2017). Institutional quality and foreign direct investment inflows: evidence from asian countries. Journal of Economic Studies, 44(6), 1030-1050.
• Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.