Mediation Effect of the Governance Indicators in the Natural Resources Abundance and Economic Growth Relationship: Empirical Evidence from the MENA and Caspian Countries

Öz

This study investigates the mediation effect of the governance indicators in the relationship between natural resources abundance and economic growth for 21 countries (N=21) from Middle East-North Africa (MENA) and Caspian regions, using 1996-2012 balanced annual (T=17) panel data sets. In this context, after estimating the impact of crude oil production per capita on real GDP per capita, hierarchical panel regression analysis is conducted to determine the mediation role of the institutions-based governance indicators in this relationship. Results from the pairwise regression estimations reveal that crude oil production per capita is negatively associated with worldwide governance indicators in general and the progressive improvements in all dimensions of governance indicators seem to promote the real GDP per capita growth. Results from the hierarchical regressions demonstrate that governance indicators play an important role as a partial mediator in the relationship between crude oil production and real GDP per capita. This evidence supports that governance indicators, weakened by natural resources abundance, tend to hinder natural resources abundance to contribute economic growth. Overall findings highlight the importance of integrated policies intended for preventing the corruption and violence, together with democratic, political and legal regulations to improve the institutional quality

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Crude oil production, economic growth, worldwide governance indicators, mediation effect, hierarchical panel regression analysis

Doğal Kaynak Zenginliği ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisinde Yönetişim Göstergelerinin Aracılık Etkisi: MENA ve Hazar Ülkelerinden Ampirik Bulgular

Öz

Bu çalışma, Orta Doğu-Kuzey Afrika (MENA) ve Hazar bölgesinden 21 ülke (N=21) için, doğal kaynak zenginliği ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisinde yönetişim göstergelerinin aracılık etkisini, 1996-2012 dönemi yıllık dengeli panel verileri (T=17) kullanarak incelemektedir. Bu kapsamda, kişi başına ham petrol üretiminin kişi başına reel GSYH üzerine etkisi tahmin edildikten sonra, bu ilişkide kurumsal-temelli yönetişim göstergelerinin aracılık rolünü belirlemek için hiyerarşik regresyon analizi uygulanmıştır. İkili regresyon tahmin sonuçları, kişi başına ham petrol üretimi ile genel olarak küresel yönetişim göstergeleri arasında negatif bir ilişki olduğunu ve yönetişim göstergelerinin tüm boyutlarında meydana gelen gelişmelerin kişi başına reel GSYH’yı artırdığını göstermektedir. Hiyerarşik regresyon sonuçları, ham petrol üretimi ve kişi başına reel GSYH arasındaki ilişkide yönetişim göstergelerinin, kısmi bir aracı değişken olarak, önemli bir rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Bu bulgu, doğal kaynak zenginliğinin ekonomik büyümeyi artırmasının, bu zenginliğinin aynı zamanda yönetişim göstergelerini bozması nedeniyle engellenme eğiliminde olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Tüm sonuçlar, kurumsal niteliği geliştirecek demokratik, politik ve hukuki düzenlemeler ile birlikte yolsuzluğu ve şiddeti önlemeye yönelik bütünleşik politikaların önemine dikkat çekmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ham petrol üretimi, ekonomik büyüme, küresel yönetişim göstergeleri, aracılık etkisi, hiyerarşik panel regresyon analizi

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. ve Robinson, J. A. (2001) “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation” The American Economic Review, 91(5): 1369-1401.
2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J. A. ve Tha- icharoen, Y. (2003) “Institutioal Causes, Macroeconomic Symptons: Volatility, Crisis and Growth” Journal of Mo- netary Economics, 50(1): 49-123.
3. Baltagi, B. H. (2005) Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 3rd edition, London, John Wiley & Sons.
4. Baron, R. M. ve Kenny, D. A. (1986) “The Modera- tor-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Conside- rations” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.
5. Bhagwati, J. N. (1958) “Immiserizing Growth: A Ge- ometrical Note” The Review of Economic Studies, 25(3): 201-205.
6. Bulte, E. H., Damania, R. ve Deacon, R. T. (2005) “Resource Intensity, Institutions, and Development” World Development, 33(7): 1029-1044.
7. Busse, M. ve Groening, S. (2011) “The Resour- ces Curse Revisited: Governance and Natural Resour- ces” http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/conferences/2011-edia/ papers/399-Busse.pdf (13.02.2014).
8. Caselli, F. (2006) “Power Struggles and the Natu- ral Resource Curse” LSE Research Online Working Pa- per, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/casellif/papers/curse.pdf (18.02.2014).

9. Demiral, M. (2014). Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler, Sanayi- leşme ve İhracat: Türkiye İle Seçilmiş Ülke Karşılaştırmaları. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Adana, Çukurova Üniver- sitesi SBE.
10. Feenstra, R. C. (2004) Advanced International Trade: Theory and Evidence. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press.
11. Gelb, A.H. (1988) Windfall Gains: Blessing or Curse? New York., Oxford University Press.
12. Gerring, J. ve Thacker S. C. (2004) “Political Insti- tutions and Corruption: The Role of Unitarism and Par- liamentarism” British Journal of Political Science, 34(2): 295-330.
13. Gylfason, T., Herbertsson, T. T. ve Zoega, G. (1999) “A Mixed Blessing: Natural Resources and Economic Growth” Macroeconomic Dynamics, 3(1999): 204-225.
14. Gylfason, T. (2001) “Natural Resources, Education, and Economic Development” European Economic Review, 45(2001): 847-859.
15. Hausmann, R. ve Rigobon, R. (2003) “An Alternative Interpretation for the Resources Curse: Theory and Policy Implications” NBER Working Papers, No. 9424.
16. Hsiao, C. (2003) Analysis of Panel Data. 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
17. Jensen, N. ve Wantchekon, L. (2004) “Resource We- alth and Political Regimes in Africa” Comparative Political Studies, 37(7): 816-841.
18. Kolstad, I. ve Soreide, T. (2009) “Corruption in Na- tural Resource Management: Implications for Policy Ma- kers” Resources Policy, 34(4): 214-226.
19. Kunicova, J. ve Rose-Ackerman S. (2005) “Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption” British Journal of Political Science, 35(4): 573-606.
20. Lal, D. (1993). The Repressed Economy: Causes, Conse- quences, Reform. Brookfield, Edward Elgar.
21. Larsen, R. E. (2006) “Escaping the Resource Curse and the Dutch Disease? When and Why Norway Caught Up With and Forged Ahead of Its Neighbors” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 65(3): 605-640.
22. Lederman, D. ve Maloney, W. F. (2007). Natural Resources: Neither Curse Nor Destiny. Palo Alto, Stanford University Press.
23. Leite, C. ve Weidmann, J. (1999) “Does Mother Na- ture Corrupt? Natural Resources, Corruption, and Eco- nomic Growth” IMF Working Papers, No. 85.
24. 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.
25. Mehlum, H., Moene, K. ve Torvik, R. (2006a) “Ins- titutions and The Resource Curse” The Economic Journal, 116(508): 1-20.
26. Mehlum, H., Moene, K. ve Torvik, R. (2006b) “Cur- sed by Resources or Institutions?” The World Economy, 29(8): 1117-1131.
27. Metcalf, G. E. ve Wolfram, C. (2010) “Cursed Reso- urces? Political Conditions and Oil Market Outcomes” NBER Working Papers, No. 16614.
28. Oomes, N. ve Kalcheva, K. (2007) “Diagnosing Dutch Disease: Does Russia have the symptoms?” BOFIT Discussion Papers, No. 7.
29. Pesaran, M. H. (2004) “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, CESifo Working Papers, No. 1229.
30. Pessoa, A. (2008) “Natural Resources and Institu- tions: The Natural Resources Curse Revisited”, http:// mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8640/1/MPRA_paper_8640. pdf (19.02.2014).
31. Petermann, A., Guzman, J. I. ve Tilton, J. E. (2007) “Mining and Corruption”. Resources Policy, 32(3): 91- 103.
32. Prebisch, R. (1950) “The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems” Economic Bul- letin for Latin America, Vol. 7, New York, United Nations.
33. Robinson, J. A., Torvik, R. ve Verdier, T. (2006) “Po- litical Foundations of the Resources Curse” Journal of De- velopment Economics, 79(2): 447-468.
34. Ross, M. L. (2001) “Does Oil Hinder Democracy?” World Politics, 53(3): 325-361.
35. Rybczynski, T. M. (1955) “Factor Endowments and Relative Commodity Prices” Economica, 22(88): 336- 341.
36. Sachs, J. D. ve Warner, A. M. (1997) “Natural Reso- urce Abundance and Economic Growth” NBER Working Paper Series, No. 5398.
37. Sachs, J. D. ve Warner, A. M. (1999) “The Big Push, Natural Resource Booms and Growth” Journal of Deve- lopment Economics, Vol. 59: 43-76.
38. Sachs, J. D. ve Warner, A. M. (2001) “The Curse of Natural Resources” European Economic Review, 45(4-6): 827-838.
39. Singer, H. W. (1950) “The Distribution of Gains bet- ween Investing and Borrowing Countries” American Eco- nomic Review, Vol. 15: 473-485.
40. Sobel, M. E. (1982) “Asymptotic Intervals for Indi- rect Effects in Structural Equations Models” Sociological Methodology, Vol. 13: 290-312.
41. Wantchekon, L. (1999) “Why do Resource Depen- dent Countries Have Authoritarian Governments?” Jour- nal of African Finance and Economic Development, 5(2): 57-77.
42. Williams, A. (2011) “Shining a Light on the Reso- urces Curse: An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship Between Natural Resources, Transparency, and Economic Growth” World Development, 39(4): 490-505.
43. Yang, B. (2009) “Resource Curse: The Role of Insti- tutions Versus Policies” Applied Economics Letters, 17(1): 61-66.
44. WB-WGI (2014), http://info.worldbank.org/gover- nance/wgi/index.aspx#home (04.02.2014).
45. US-EIA (2014), http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbpro- ject/IEDIndex3.cfm (04.02.2014).