Protection of Private Property Rights and Income Inequality: An Empirical Analysis for OECD Countries

Öz

The relationship between the protection of property rights and income inequality in OECD countries for the period 1996-2020 is the subject of analysis of this paper. As an indicator of income inequality, two different variables are used: the Gini coefficient and the national income share of the top 1%. To control endogeneity, instrumental variables are also included in the model in addition to the indicator for the protection of property rights. In the two different models estimated with the ¨augmented mean group (AMG)¨ estimator from heterogeneous panel data models, results have been obtained that support approaches that argue that the protection of property rights reduces income inequality by creating a favourable institutional environment for all segments of society in OECD countries. In other words, empirical findings reveal that the protection of property rights reduces income inequality in the long run. However, the individual country parameters in the models estimated with the AMG estimator, which allows for the heterogeneity of the slope, show that the protection of property rights increases income inequality in some countries. The results of the panel data analysis present the strengthening of the property rights institution as a policy recommendation due to its reducing effect on the income inequality. However, the heterogeneity of country parameters presents the necessity of more detailed analyses of the channels that distort or improve the income distribution by examining country-specific factors and other institutional elements.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Private property rights
• income inequality
• formal legal system
• heterogeneous panel models
• AMG

Özel Mülkiyet Haklarının Korunması ve Gelir Eşitsizliği: OECD Ülkeleri için Ampirik Bir Analiz

Öz

OECD ülkelerinde 1996-2020 dönemi için mülkiyet haklarının korunması ile gelir eşitsizliği arasındaki ilişki bu çalışmanın analiz konusudur. Gelir eşitsizliği göstergesi olarak iki farklı değişken kullanılmıştır: Gini katsayısı ve en üstteki %1’lik kesimin ulusal gelirden aldıkları pay. İçselliği kontrol etmek için mülkiyet haklarının korunmasına ilişkin göstergeye ek olarak araç değişkenler de modele dahil edilmiştir. Heterojen panel veri modellerinden ¨genişletilmiş ortalama grup (AMG)¨ tahmincisi ile tahmin edilen iki farklı modelde, OECD ülkelerinde mülkiyet haklarının korunmasının toplumun tüm kesimleri için uygun bir kurumsal ortam yaratarak gelir eşitsizliğini azaltıcı etki yarattığını ileri süren yaklaşımları destekleyen sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. Diğer bir ifade ile ampirik bulgular mülkiyet haklarının korunmasının gelir eşitsizliğini uzun dönemde azalttığını ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak eğimin heterojenliğine izin veren AMG tahmincisi ile tahmin edilen modellerde tek tek ülke parametreleri bazı ülkelerde mülkiyet haklarının korunmasının gelir eşitsizliğini arttırıcı etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir. Panel veri analizi sonuçları gelir dağılımını azaltıcı etkisi nedeni ile mülkiyet hakları kurumunun güçlendirilmesini politika önerisi olarak ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak ülke parametrelerinin heterojenliği spesifik olarak ülkelere özgü faktörler ile diğer kurumsal etmenlerin incelenerek gelir dağılımını bozucu veya iyileştirici kanalların neler olduğunu daha ayrıntılı araştıran analizlerin gerekliliğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Özel mülkiyet hakları
• gelir eşitsizliği
• formel yasal sistem
• heterojen panel modelleri
• AMG

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. ve Robinson., J. A. (2001a). The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation. American Economic Review. 91(5). 1369-1401.
2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. ve Robinson., J. A. (2001b). Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the Making of the Modern World Income Distribution. Nber Working Paper. 8460.
3. Acemoğlu, D. (2022). Yapay Zekayı Yeniden Tasarlamak: Otomasyon Çağında İş, Demokrasi ve Adalet. Çev. Hasan Dölkeleş. Ankara: Efil Yayınevi.
4. Adams, S. ve Klobodu, E. K. M. (2016). Financial Development, Control of Corruption and Income Inequality. International Review of Applied Economics. 30(6). 790-808.
5. Alvaredo, F., Atkinson, A. B., Piketty, T. ve Saez, E. (2013). The Top 1 Percent in International and Historical Perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 27(3). 3–20.
6. Amendola, A., Easaw, J. ve Savoia, A. (2013). Inequality in Developing Economies: The Role of Institutional Development. Public Choice. 155. 43-60.
7. Asamoah, L. A. (2021). Institutional Quality and Income Inequality in Developing Countries: A Dynamic Panel Threshold Analysis. Progress in Development Studies. 21(2). 123-143.
8. Berggren, N. (1999). Economic Freedom and Equality: Friends or Foes? Public Choice.100. 203-223.

9. Betz, T. (2008). The Property Theories of Bethell, Pipes and De Soto: Similarities and Differences In Emphasis to the Approach of Heinsohn, Stadermann And Steiger. Property Economics: Property Rights, Creditor’s Money and the Foundations of the Economy. (Ed: Otto Steiger). Marburg, Germany: Metropolis. 2-24.
10. Bourguignon, F. ve Verdier, T. (1997). Oligarchy, Democracy and Growth. DELTA Working Paper. 97-10.
11. Carmignani, F. (2009). The Distributive Effects of Institutional Quality When Government Stability is Endogenous. European Journal of Political Economy. 25(4). 409-421.
12. Chudik, A. ve Pesaran, M. Hashem, (2015). Common Correlated Effects Estimation of Heterogeneous Dynamic Panel Data Models with Weakly Exogenous Regressors. Journal of Econometrics. Elsevier. 188(2). 393-420.
13. Chong, A. ve Calderón, C. (2000). Institutional Quality and Poverty Measures in a Cross-Section of Countries. Economics of Governance. 1. 123-135.
14. Clarke, G., Xu, L. C. ve Zou, H. (2006). Finance and Income Inequality: What Do The Data Tell Us?. Southern Economic Journal. 72. 578–96.
15. Davis, L. ve Hopkins, M. (2008). The Institutional Foundations of Inequality and Growth. [https://macrorules. com/mhopkins/papers/IFIG.pdf.] (Erişim: 22 Haziran 2023).
16. Davis, K. E. (2010). Institutions and Economic Performance: An Introduction to the Literature. Institutions and Economic Performance (Ed.: Kevin E. Davis ). Edward Elgar.
17. Eberhardt, M. (2012). Estimating Panel Time-Series Models with Heterogeneous Slopes. The Stata Journal. 12(1). 61-71.
18. Eberhardt M. ve Bond, S.R. (2009). Cross-Sectional Dependence in Non-Stationary Panel Models: A Novel Estimator. Nordic Econometric Meetings, Sweeden.
19. Eberhardt, M. ve Teal, F. (2010). Productivity Analysis in the Global Manufacturing Production. Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
20. Hodgson, G. M. (2015). Conceptualizing Capitalism. University of Chicago Press.
21. Heinsohn, G. ve Steiger, O. (2013). Ownership Economics: On the Foundations of Interest, Money, Markets. Business Cycles and Economic Development. Routledge.
22. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. ve Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics. 115(1). 53-74.
23. Korinek, A. ve Stiglitz, J. E. (2021). Covid-19 Driven Advances in Automation and Artificial Intelligence Risk Exacerbating Economic Inequality. [https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n367.full.pdf.] (Erişim: 05 Haziran 2023).
24. Lawson-Remer, T. (2012). Property Insecurity. Brook. J. Int’l L. 38. 145-191.
25. Lawson-Remer, T. (2013). Property Rights and Power. Current History. 112(757). 317-322.
26. Maddala, G.S. ve Wu, S. (1999). A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 61 (1). Special Issue. 631- 652.
27. Neal, T. (2015). Estimating Heterogeneous Coefficients in Panel Data Models with Endogenous Regressors and Common Factors. Workblacking Paper. 1-29.
28. Nwani, C. ve Adams, S. (2021). Environmental Cost of Natural Resource Rents Based on Production and Consumption Inventories of Carbon Emissions: Assessing the Role of Institutional Quality. Resources Policy. 74. 102282.
29. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross-Section Dependence in Panels. University of Cambridge, Working Paper CWPE 0435.
30. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogenous Panels with Multifactor Error Structure. Econometrica. 74. 967-1012.
31. 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.
32. Pesaran, M. H., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics. 142(1). 50-93.
33. Pesaran, M. H. ve Smith, R.P. (1995). Estimating Long-Run Relationships from Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics. 68(1). 79–113.
34. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R.P. (1997). Pooled Estimation of Long-Run Relationships in Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Economics.
35. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R.P. (1999). Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 94 (446). 621–634.
36. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
37. Pistor, K. (2019). The Code of Capital. Princeton University Press.
38. Qureshi, Z. (2023) Rising Inequality: A Major Issue of Our Time. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ rising-inequality-a-major-issue-of-our-time/.] (Erişim: 05 Haziran 2023).
39. Ouattara, B. ve Standaert, S. (2017). Inequality and Property Rights, Revisited. Working Paper. [https://wpsfeb. ugent.be/Papers/wp_17_935.pdf.](Erişim: 05 Haziran 2023).
40. Roberts, A. ve Kwon, R. (2017). Finance, Inequality and the Varieties of Capitalism in Post-Industrial Democracies. Socio-Economic Review. 15(3). 511-538.
41. Solt, F. (2020). Measuring Income Inequality Across Countries and Over Time: The Standardized World Income Inequality Database. Social Science Quarterly. 101 (3). 1183-1199. SWIID version 9.5. June 2023.
42. Sonin, K. (2002). Why the Rich May Favor Poor Protection of Property Rights. William Davidson Working Paper. No 544.
43. Schwartz, H. M. (2017). Club Goods, Intellectual Property Rights, and Profitability in the Information Economy. Business and Politics. 19(2). 191-214.
44. Schwartz, H. M. (2022). Global Secular Stagnation and the Rise of Intellectual Property Monopoly. Review of International Political Economy. 29(5). 1448-1476.
45. Tatoğlu, F.Y. (2017). Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
46. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 69. 709-748.
47. Williamson, C. R. ve Kerekes, C. B. (2011). Securing Private Property: Formal Versus Informal Institutions. The Journal of Law and Economics. 54 (3). 537-572.