Kurumsal Kalite ve Gelir Eşitsizliği Paradoksu: Latin Amerika'daki Eşitsizlik Dinamiklerinin Analizi

Öz

Ülkeler teknolojik gelişmeleri üretim süreçlerine entegre ettikçe, daha yüksek GSYİH seviyelerine ulaşarak ekonomik refahı artırmaktadır. Ancak, gelir dağılımındaki eşitsizlik, gelir adaletsizliği konusunda endişeleri gündeme getirmiştir. Kuznets hipotezine dayanarak birçok çalışma gelir eşitsizliğinin belirleyicisi olarak gelire odaklanırken, son yıllarda kurumsal kalitenin (IQ) gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmaya başlanmıştır. Bu bağlamda, mevcut çalışma 1996-2023 yılları arasında 17 Latin Amerika ülkesi için Common Correlated Effects Mean Group (CCEMG) tekniğini kullanarak IQ gelişmelerinin üç spesifik gelir grubu üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Bulgular, IQ'daki iyileşmelerin P90 grubu (en üst %10'luk gelir dilimi) lehine olacak şekilde gelir dağılımını bozduğunu göstermektedir. IQ’nun bireysel bileşenlerinin etkileri değerlendirildiğinde, yolsuzluk, hükümet etkinliği, hukukun üstünlüğü ve katılım & hesap verebilirlik değişkenlerinin gelir dağılımı üzerinde anlamlı ve olumsuz etkileri olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, bu çalışma IQ ile gelir eşitsizliği arasındaki ilişkinin ters U şeklinde olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır: IQ'daki iyileşmeler başlangıçta gelir eşitsizliğini artırırken, belirli bir eşik değeri aşıldığında gelir dağılımında daha adil bir yapıya katkıda bulunmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, IQ’daki iyileşmelerin P99 grubu (en üst %1'lik gelir dilimi) veya B50 grubu (en alt %50'lik gelir dilimi) üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi bulunmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumların Kalitesi
• Gelir Eşitsizliği
• CCEMG

Institutional Quality and the Income Inequality Paradox: Exploring the Inequality Dynamics in Latin America

Abstract

As countries incorporate technological advancements into their production processes, they achieve higher GDP levels, driving economic prosperity. However, the unequal distribution of income has raised concerns about income inequality. While many studies have focused on income as a determinant of inequality based on Kuznets' hypothesis, recent research has begun exploring the impact of institutional quality (IQ) on income distribution. Within this framework, this study examines the effects of IQ improvements on income distribution across three specific income groups using the Common Correlated Effects Mean Group (CCEMG) technique for 17 Latin American countries from 1996 to 2023. The findings indicate that improvements in IQ have worsened income distribution in favor of the P90 group (top 10% income share). When assessing the effects of individual IQ components, corruption, government effectiveness, rule of law, and voice & accountability were found to have significantly negative effects on income distribution. Additionally, this study reveals that the relationship between IQ and income inequality is inverse U-shaped: while IQ improvements initially exacerbate income inequality, once a certain threshold is exceeded, they contribute to a more equitable distribution of income. However, IQ improvements did not have a significant impact on the P99 group (top 1% income share) or the B50 group (bottom 50% income share).

Keywords

• Institutional Quality
• Income inequality
• CCEMG

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown.
2. Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P., & Robinson, J. A. (2015). Democracy, redistribution, and inequality. In Handbook of income distribution (Vol. 2, pp. 1885-1966). Elsevier.
3. Adams, S., & Klobodu, E. K. M. (2016). Financial development, control of corruption and income inequality. International Review of Applied Economics, 30(6), 790-808.
4. Adams, S., & Klobodu, E. K. M. (2019). Urbanization, economic structure, political regime, and income inequality. Social Indicators Research, 142, 971-995.
5. Addae, E. A., Sun, D., & Abban, O. J. (2023). Evaluating the effect of urbanization and foreign direct investment on water use efficiency in West Africa: application of the dynamic slacks-based model and the common correlated effects mean group estimator. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(7), 5867-5897.
6. Adedoyin, F. F., Alola, A. A., & Bekun, F. V. (2021). The alternative energy utilization and common regional trade outlook in EU-27: evidence from common correlated effects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111092.
7. Ahmad, M. (2016). Middle income trap and income inequality: Empirical evidence on the distributional effect of economic liberalization and political regime. MPRA Paper No. 76437, Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
8. Ahmed, F., Kousar, S., Pervaiz, A., & Shabbir, A. (2022). Do institutional quality and financial development affect sustainable economic growth? Evidence from South Asian countries. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(1), 189-196.

9. Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1996). Income distribution, political instability, and investment. European economic review, 40(6), 1203-1228.
10. Amendola, A., Easaw, J., & Savoia, A. (2013). Inequality in developing economies: the role of institutional development. Public Choice, 155, 43-60.
11. Apergis, N., & Cooray, A. (2017). Economic freedom and income inequality: Evidence from a panel of global economies—a linear and a non‐linear long‐run analysis. The Manchester School, 85(1), 88-105.
12. Avci, M., & Avci, G. M. (2017). OECD Ülkelerinde Kurumsal Kalite ve Gelir Esitsizligi Iliskisi/Institutional Quality and Income Inequality Relationship for OECD Countries. Sosyoekonomi, 25(31), 75.
13. Babar, Z. A., & Quddus, M. A. (2020). The Role of Institutional Quality for Growth, Income Inequality and FDI: A Dynamic Panel Data Approach. Paradigms, 14(2), 18-24.
14. Baligh, N., & Piraee, K. (2013). Financial development and income inequality relationship in Iran. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 13(7), 56-64.
15. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q., & Kao, C. (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 164-177.
16. Barro, R. J. (2000). Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries. Journal of economic growth, 5, 5-32.
17. Batuo, M., & Asongu, S. A. (2015). The impact of liberalisation policies on income inequality in African countries. Journal of Economic Studies, 42(1), 68-100.
18. Bennett, D. L., & Nikolaev, B. (2016). Factor endowments, the rule of law and structural inequality. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(4), 773-795.
19. Bourguignon, F., & Verdier, T. (2000). Oligarchy, democracy, inequality and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 62(2), 285-313.
20. Breusch, T. S., & 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.
21. Carmignani, F. (2009). The distributive effects of institutional quality when government stability is endogenous. European Journal of Political Economy, 25(4), 409-421.
22. Chong, A., & Calderon, C. (2000). Institutional quality and income distribution. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(4), 761-786.
23. Coccia, M. (2021). How a good governance of institutions can reduce poverty and inequality in society?. Legal-economic institutions, entrepreneurship, and management: Perspectives on the dynamics of institutional change from emerging markets, 65-94.
24. Durgun, B. (2025). Savunma Harcamaları ve Kurumsal Kalitenin Gelir Eşitsizliğine Etkisi: Türkiye’den Yeni Kanıtlar. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi (İKTİSAD), 10(26), 234-256.
25. Engerman, S. L., & Sokoloff, K. L. (1994). Factor endowments: institutions, and differential paths of growth among new world economies. National Bureau of Economic Research.
26. Glaeser, E., Scheinkman, J., & Shleifer, A. (2003). The injustice of inequality. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 199-222.
27. Gökçeli, E. (2023). Institutional quality and foreign direct investment: evidence from OECD countries. Ekonomický časopis, 71(03), 222-257.
28. Hartmann, D., Guevara, M. R., Jara-Figueroa, C., Aristarán, M., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2017). Linking economic complexity, institutions, and income inequality. World development, 93, 75-93.
29. Huynh, C. M. (2021). Foreign direct investment and income inequality: Does institutional quality matter?. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 30(8), 1231-1243.
30. Jahanger, A., Usman, M., & Ahmad, P. (2023). Investigating the effects of natural resources and institutional quality on CO2 emissions during globalization mode in developing countries. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20(9), 9663-9682.
31. Kaufmann, D. (2007). Governance indicators: where are we, where should we be going? (Vol. 4370). World Bank Publications.
32. Kemp-Benedict, E. (2011). Political regimes and income inequality. Economics Letters, 113(3), 266-268.
33. Kılıç, R., & Gökçeli, E. (2024). Gelir Eşitsizliğine İnsani Gelişme Endeksi Yönüyle Yeni Bir Bakiş Açisi. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(29), 214-242.
34. Konu, A. (2017). Gelir dağılımı eşitsizliği ve ekonomik özgürlük ilişkisi: OECD ülkeleri için ampirik bir değerlendirme. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(4), 928-936.
35. Kouadio, H. K., & Gakpa, L. L. (2022). Do economic growth and institutional quality reduce poverty and inequality in West Africa?. Journal of Policy Modeling, 44(1), 41-63.
36. Küçükaksoy, İ., & Akalin, G. (2017). Fisher Hipotezi'nin panel veri analizi ile test edilmesi: OECD ülkeleri uygulamasi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1), 19-40.
37. Lee, C. C., & Lee, C. C. (2018). The impact of country risk on income inequality: A multilevel analysis. Social Indicators Research, 136(1), 139-162.
38. Mano, H. (2024). Foreign Direct Investment and Domestic Private Investment in WAEMU Countries: Crowding-in or Crowding-out?. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 14(3), 57-65.
39. Mdingi, K., & Ho, S. Y. (2021). Literature review on income inequality and economic growth. MethodsX, 8, 101402.
40. Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1993). Why is rent-seeking so costly to growth?. The American Economic Review, 83(2), 409-414.
41. Nadia, Z. B. H., & Teheni, Z. E. G. (2014). Finance, governance and inequality: A non parametric approach. International Strategic Management Review, 2(1), 31-38.
42. Nam, H. J., Frijns, B., & Ryu, D. (2024). Trade openness and income inequality: The moderating role of institutional quality. Global Finance Journal, 60, 100959.
43. Naplava, R. (2020). Institutional quality and income inequality: evidence from post-soviet countries. European Journal of Business Science and Technology, 6(2), 100-112.
44. Nica, E., Poliakova, A., Popescu, G. H., Valaskova, K., Burcea, S. G., & Constantin, A. L. D. (2023). The impact of financial development, health expenditure, CO2 emissions, institutional quality, and energy Mix on life expectancy in Eastern Europe: CS-ARDL and quantile regression Approaches. Heliyon, 9(11).
45. Nielsen, F. (1994). Income inequality and industrial development: Dualism revisited. American Sociological Review, 654-677.
46. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University.
47. Partridge, M. D. (1997). Is inequality harmful for growth? Comment. The American Economic Review, 87(5), 1019-1032.
48. Pedauga, L. E., Pedauga, L. D., & Delgado-Márquez, B. L. (2017). Relationships between corruption, political orientation, and income inequality: evidence from Latin America. Applied Economics, 49(17), 1689-1705.
49. Perera, L. D. H., & Lee, G. H. (2013). Have economic growth and institutional quality contributed to poverty and inequality reduction in Asia?. Journal of Asian Economics, 27, 71-86.
50. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers. Economics, 1240(1), 1.
51. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
52. 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.
53. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
54. Policardo, L., & Carrera, E. J. S. (2018). Corruption causes inequality, or is it the other way around? An empirical investigation for a panel of countries. Economic Analysis and Policy, 59, 92-102.
55. Rowlingson, K. (2011). Does income inequality cause health and social problems?. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
56. Sarfraz, M., Ivascu, L., & Cioca, L. I. (2021). Environmental regulations and CO2 mitigation for sustainability: panel data analysis (PMG, CCEMG) for BRICS nations. Sustainability, 14(1), 72.
57. Scully, G. W. (2002). Economic freedom, government policy and the trade-off between equity and economic growth. Public choice, 113(1), 77-96.
58. Sulemana, I., & Kpienbaareh, D. (2018). An empirical examination of the relationship between income inequality and corruption in Africa. Economic Analysis and Policy, 60, 27-42.
59. Szczepaniak, M., Geise, A., & Bariyah, N. (2022). Impact of institutional determinants on income inequalities in Indonesia during the Era Reformasi. Journal of Asian Economics, 82, 101526.
60. Wagle, U. R. (2009). Inclusive democracy and economic inequality in South Asia: any discernible link?. Review of Social Economy, 67(3), 329-357.
61. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of applied econometrics, 23(2), 193-233.
62. Zehra, S., Majeed, M. T., & Ali, A. (2021). Quality of institutional indicators and income inequality: A global panel data analysis of 114 economies. Pakistan Journal of Economic Studies (PJES), 4(2), 165-204.