GELİR DAĞILIMI, DEMOKRASİ, REEL GELİR VE DIŞA AÇIKLIK İLİŞKİSİ: BALKAN ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR UYGULAMA

Year 2018, Prof. Dr. Harun TERZI Special Issue, 73 - 82, 19.09.2018

Ali Acaravcı , Sinan Erdoğan , Seyfettin Artan

https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.427485

Cited By: 1

Abstract

İktisat bilimciler her ne kadar erken dönemde
iktisadi büyüme odaklanmış olsa da, izleyen dönemde yaratılan gelirin bölüşümü
de iktisatta öne çıkan çalışma alanı olmuştur. Bu çalışma, Balkan Ülkelerinde
gelir dağılımı, demokrasi, reel gelir ve dışa açıklık arasındaki nedensellik
ilişkilerini, yatay-kesit bağımlılığı dikkate alan ikinci nesil panel veri
yöntemleri kullanarak 1996-2010 dönemi için araştırmaktadır. Yatay kesit
bağımlılık ve eğim katsayıları homojenlik test sonuçlarına göre, model yatay
kesit bağımlıdır ve hesaplanacak eğim katsayıları heterojendir. Değişkenler arasındaki nedensel ilişkiler,
yatay kesit bağımlılığı dikkate alan, ülke bazlı sonuçlar elde etmeye olanak
sağlayan ve iki açıklayıcı değişkenin bağımlı değişken üzerindeki etkisini aynı
anda test etmeye olanak sağlayan Konya (2006) panel nedensellik modeliyle
incelenmiştir. Analiz sonuçları şu şekilde
özetlenebilir: Demokrasi,  gelir reel
gelir ve ticari açıklıktan gelir dağılımına doğru nedensellik ilişkisi
mevcuttur. Demokrasi ve dışa açıklık, gelir dağılımı üzerinde daha güçlü ortak
etkiye sahiptir. 

Keywords

Balkan Ülkeleri, Gelir Dağılımı, Demokrasi, Reel Gelir, Dışa Açıklık

RELATIONSHIPS of INCOME DISTRIBUTION, DEMOCRACY, REAL INCOME and TRADE OPENNESS: THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM BALKAN STATES

Abstract

Although
economists have focused on economic growth issue in the early period,
distribution of income which is created by economic growth has become one of
the prominent field in economics as well. This study explores the causal
relationships between income distribution, democracy, real income and trade
openness in Balkan States for 1996-2010 period by using the second generation
panel data methods under cross-sectional dependence. According to
cross-sectional dependence and homogeneity tests, model is cross-sectionally
dependent and slope coefficients are heterogeneous. Causal relationships between variables have been examined
by using Konya (2006) panel data causality approach which allows
cross-sectional dependence and gives possibility to examine two explanatory
variables’ effects on dependent variable and obtain country-specific results.
The results can be summarized as follows: There exist causal relationships from democracy, real income and trade
openness to income distribution. Democracy and trade openness have more powerful common effects on
income distribution.

Keywords

Balkan States, Income Distribution, Democracy, Real Income, Trade Openness

References

• Acemoğlu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P., Robinson J. A., (2013). Democracy, Redistribution and Inequality. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19746.pdf . (Erişim Tarihi: 10.04.2017)
• Artan, S., Kalaycı C. (2014). Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Dışa Açıklık, Demokrasi ve Geliş Dağılımı İlişkisi. Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 4(2): 69-88.Azzoni, C. R. (2001). Economic Growth and Regional Income Inequality in Brazil. The Annals of Regional Science. 35, 133-152.
• Bababones, S. J. ve Vonada, D. C. (2009). Trade Globalization and National Income Inequality: Are They Related?. Journal of Sociology, 45(1); 5-30.Barro, R. J. (2000). Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries. Journal of Economic Growth, 5: 5-32.
• Bollen, K. A.; Jackman R. W. (1985). Political Democracy and the Size Distribution of Income. American Sociological Review, 50(4): 438-457.
• Breusch, P. S.; Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 11(7); 239-253.
• Calderon, C. ve Chong, A. (2001). External Sector and Income Inequality in Interdependent Economies Using a Dynamic Panel Data Approach. Economics Letters, 71, 225-231.
• Chakrabarti, A. (2000). Does Trade Cause Inequality?. Journal of Economic Development, 25(2); 1-21.
• Chong, A. (2001).Inequality, Democracy and Persistence: Is There a Political Kuznets Curve?. (https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/1905/Inequality%2c%20Democracy%2c%20and%20Persistence%3a%20Is%20There%20a%20Political%20Kuznets%20Curve%3f.pdf?sequence=1) (Erişim Tarihi: 10.4.2017).
• Chun Zhu, S. ve Terfler, D. (2005). Trade and Inequality in Developing Countries: A General Equilibrium Analysis. Journal of International Economics, 65, 21-48.Deninger, K.; Squire, L. (1998). New Ways of Looking at Old Issues: Inequality and Growth. Journal of Development Economics, 57: 259-287.
• Edwards, S. (1997). Trade Policy, Growth and Income Distribution. The American Economic Review, 87(2); 205-210.
• Gradstein, M., Milanovic, B., Ying, Y. (2001). Democracy and Income Inequality. The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, WPS 2561.
• Konya, L. (2006). Export and Growth: Granger Causality Analysis on OECD Countries with a Panel Data Approach. Economic Modelling, 23, 978-992.
• Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1): 1-28.
• Lee, C. S. (2005). Income Inequality, Democracy and Public Sector Size. American Sociological Review, 70: 158-191.
• Muller, E. N. (1988). Democracy, Economic Development and Income Inequality. American Sociological Review, 53(1): 50-68.
• Pesaran, M. Hasheem; Yamagata, Takashi (2008). Testing Slope Homogenity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-98.
• Reuveny, R.; Quan, L. (2003), Economic Openness, Democracy, and Income Inequality: An Empiricial Analysis, Comparative Political Studies, 36: 575-601.
• Shen, Y., Yao, Y. (2008). Does Grassroots Democracy Reduce Income Inequality in China?. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 2182-2198.
• Shin, I. (2012). Income Inequality and Economic Growth. Economic Modelling, 29, 2049-2057
• Solt, F. (2009). The Standardized World Income Inequality Database. Social Science Quarterly, 97(5), 1267-1281.
• Szekely, M. ve Sámano, C. (2012). Did Trade Openness Affect Income Distribution in Latin America? Evidence for the Years 1980-2010. UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), Working Paper No. 2012/03.
• Wagle, U. R. (2009). Inclusive Democracy and Economic Inequality in South Asia: Any Discernible Link?. Review of Social Economy, 67(3), 329-357, DOI:10.1080/00346760902908617