Relationship of Political Rights And Corruptıon: A Panel Data Analysis

Year 2015, Volume: 15 Issue: 3, 327 - 342, 01.08.2015

Gökhan Erkal Merter Akıncı Ömer Yılmaz

Abstract

This study unlike previous studies aims to identify only the relationship between political rights and corruption by using the datas of 31 the least developed, 91 developing and 51 developed countries for a total of 173 countries for analysis of panel data for the period of 1995-2013. According to the Pedroni and Kao panel cointegration test and the Johansen-Fisher panel cointegration test long-term relationships between the political rights and corruption variables were determined. In addition, the findings of Granger causality analysis showed that political rights causes to corruption. According to the results of the fixed effect model a 1% increase in the political rights causes a 0,0603% reduction in the corruption. Therefore, it was found that the rise in political rights increases corruption considered 173 countries for the period of 1995-2013

Keywords

Political Rights, Corruption, Panel Data Analysis Granger Causality, Panel Cointegration Analysis.

Politik İstikrarsızlık ve Yolsuzluk İlişkisi: Bir Panel Veri Analizi

Abstract

Politik istikrarsızlık ve yolsuzluk arasındaki ilişkiyi tespit etmeyi amaçlayan bu çalışmada 1995–2013 döneminde 31’i az gelişmiş, 91’i gelişmekte olan ve 51’i gelişmiş olmak üzere toplam 173 ülke için panel veri analizleri kullanılmıştır. Pedroni, Kao ve Johansen-Fisher panel eş-bütünleşme testi sonuçlarına göre politik istikrarsızlık ve yolsuzluk arasında uzun dönemli ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca Granger nedensellik analizi bulguları ise politik istikrarsızlığın, yolsuzluğun nedeni olduğunu göstermiştir. Sabit etkili model tahmin sonuçlarına göre politik istikrarsızlıkta meydana gelecek %1’lik bir artış, yolsuzlukta %0,0603’lük bir azalma meydana getirmektedir. Dolayısıyla, 1995-2013 döneminde ele alınan 173 ülkede politik istikrarsızlıktaki artışın yolsuzluğu arttırdığı sonucuna varılmıştır

Keywords

Politik İstikrarsızlık, Yolsuzluk, Panel Veri Analizi, Granger Nedensellik, Panel Eş Bütünleşme Analizi.

References

• Akıncı, Merter, Ekonomik Özgürlükler ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki, 1. Baskı, Dora Yayıncılık, Bursa 2014.
• Aktan, Coşkun C., “Klasik Liberalizm, Neo-Libera- lizm ve Libertarianizm”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 28, Sayı: 1, 1995, s. 3-27.
• Aktan, Coşkun C., Yeni İktisat Okulları, 2. Baskı, Seç- kin Yayıncılık, Ankara 2008.
• Alesina, Alberto, Şule Özler, Nouriel Roubini and Phillip Swagel, “Political Instability and Economic tical Purposes and the Law, Continuum Publishing, New Growth”, NBER Working Paper, No: 4173, 1992. York 2000.
• Ali, Abdiweli M. - Hodan S. Isse, “Determinants of Economic Corruption: A Cross-Country Comparison”, Cato Journal, Vol: 22, No: 3, 2003, s. 449-466.
• Asongu, Simplice A., “Fighting Corruption in Afri- ca: Do Existing Corruption-Control Levels Matter?”, In- ternational Journal of Development Issues, Vol: 12, No: 1, 2013, 36-52.
• Beaud, Olivier, “Anayasa ve Anayasacılık”, Philippe Raynaud ve Stephane Rials (Ed.), Siyaset Felsefesi Sözlüğü, (ss. 63-74), İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul 2004.
• Berggren, Niclas, “The Benefits of Economic Free- dom: A Survey”, The Independent Review, Vol: 8, No: 2, 2003, s. 193-211.
• Billger, Sherrilyn M. - Rajeev K. Goel, “Do Existing Corruption Levels Matter in Controlling Corruption? Cross-Country Quantile Regression Estimates”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol: 90, No: 2, 2009, s. 299- 305.
• Brenkert, George G., Political Freedom, Routledge Publishing, London 1991.
• Brooks, C. (2008), Introductory Econometrics for Fi- nance (UK: Cambridge University Press 2nd Ed.).
• Buchanan, James M., “The Constitution of Economic Policy”, American Economic Review, Vol: 77, No: 3, 1987, s. 243-250.
• Campante, Filipe R., Davin Chor and Quoc A. Do, “Instability and the Incentives for Corruption”, Econo- mics & Politics, Vol: 21, No: 1, 2009, s. 42-92.
• Campos, Mauro F. - Francesco Giovannoni, “Lobb- ying, Corruption and Political Influence”, Public Choice, Vol: 131, No: 1-2, 2007, s. 1-21.
• Charemza, W.W. - Deadman, D.F. (1993), New Di- rections in Econometric Practice (UK: Edward Elgar Pub- lishing).
• Çelik, Fikret - Sefa Usta, “Klasik Liberalizmde ‘Öz- gürlük’ ve Liberalizmin Yerel Yönetimlere Bakışı”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 24, 2010, s. 121-135.
• Çetin, Tamer, “İktisadi Etkinlik Üzerine Bir Deneme: X Etkinlik Yaklaşımı”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, Cilt: 11, Sayı: 2, 2010, s. 183-198.
• Çoban, Orhan, “Organize Olmayan Sosyo-Ekono- mik Sistemin Organize Bir Kurumu: Rüşvet”, Amme İda- resi Dergisi, Cilt: 32, Sayı: 2, 1999, s. 3-13.
• Davis, Howard, Political Freedom: Associations, Poli
• De Vanssay, Xavier - Z. A. Spindler, “Freedom and Growh: Do Constitutions Matter?”, Public Choice, Vol: 78, No: 3-4, 1994, s. 359-372.
• Del Monte, Alfredo - Erasmo Papagni, “The Determi- nants of Corruption in Italy: Regional Panel Data Analy- sis”, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol: 23, No: 2, 2007, s. 379-396.
• Elbahnasawy, Nasr G. - Charles F. Revier, “The De- terminants of Corruption: Cross-Country-Panel-Data Analysis”, The Developing Economies, Vol: 50, No: 4, 2012, s. 311-333.
• Elliott, Kimberly A., “Corruption as an International Policy Problem: Overview and Recommendations”, Kim- berly A. Elliott (Ed.), Corruption and the Global Economy, (pp. 175-236), Institute for International Economics, Washington DC 1997.
• Ellul, Jacques, The Ethics of Freedom, Wm. B. Eerd- mans Publishing, USA 1976.
• Evrensel, Ayşe, “Institutional and Economic Deter- minants of Corruption: A Cross-Section Analysis”, App- lied Economics Letters, Vol: 17, No: 6, 2010, s. 551-554.
• Farr, W. Ken, Richard A. Lord - J. Larry Wolfenbar- ger, “Economic Freedom, Political Freedom and Econo- mic Well-Being: A Causality Analysis”, Cato Journal, Vol: 18, No: 2, 1998, s. 247-262.
• Friedman, Milton - Rose D. Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 40th Edition, University of Chicago Press, USA 2002.
• Gerring, John - Strom C. Thacker, “Political Institu- tions and Corruption: The Role of Unitarism and Parli- amentarism”, British Journal of Political Science, Vol: 34, No: 2, 2004, s. 295-330.
• Goel, Rajeev K. - Michael A. Nelson, “Economic Fre- edom Versus Political Freedom: Cross-Country Influen- ces on Corruption”, Australian Economic Papers, Vol: 44, No: 2, 2005, s. 121-133.
• Granger, C.W.J. (1964), Spectral Analysis of Econo- mic Time Series (New Jersey: Princeton University Press).
• Granger, C.W.J. (1969), “Investigating Causal Rela- tions by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Met- hods”, Econometrica, 37(3), s. 424-438.
• Gwartney, James - Robert Lawson, “The Concept and Measurement of Economic Freedom”, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol: 19, No: 3, 2003, s. 405-430.
• Hamilton, J.D. (1994), Time Series Analysis. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
• Hausman, J.A. - Taylor, W.E. (1981), “Panel Data and Unobservable Individual Effects”, Econometrica, 49(6), 1377-1398.
• Ismail, Aisha - Kashif Rashid, “Time Series Analysis of the Nexus Among Corruption, Political Instability and Judicial Inefficiency in Pakistan”, Quality & Quantity, 2013, DOI: 10.1007/s11135-013-9922-5
• Iwasaki, Ichiro - Taku Suzuki, “The Determiants of Corruption in Transition Economies”, Economics Letters, Vol: 114, No: 1, 2012, s. 54-60.
• Jayasuriya, Kanishka, “The Rule of Law and Regimes of Exception in East Asia”, Asia Research Centre Working Paper, No: 96, 2000.
• Judge, G.G. (1985), The Theory and Practice of Eco- nometrics (USA: Wiley 2nd Ed.).
• Kao, C. (1999), “Spurious Regression and Residual- Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data”, Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), s. 1-44.
• Kasper, Wolfgang, Ekonomik Özgürlük ve Gelişme, (Çev.: Bahadır Akın), Liberte Yayınları, Ankara 2007.
• Kaya, V. - Yılmaz, Ö. (2006), “Bölgesel Enflasyon Bölgesel Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye İçin Zaman Serisi ve Panel Veri Analizleri”, İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 21(247), s. 62-78.
• Kuşat, Nurdan - Nilgün Dolmacı, “Kamu Tercihi Teorisi Çerçevesinde Seçim Ekonomisi Kavramının De- ğerlendirilmesi”, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 12, Sayı: 1, 2011, 129-146.
• Lau, E., Chye, X.-H. - Choong, C.-K. (2011), “Energy-Growth Causality: Asian Countries Revisited”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 1(4), s. 140-149.
• Lederman, Daniel, Norman V. Loayza and Rodrigo R. Soares, “Accountability and Corruption: Political Ins- titutions Matter”, Economics & Politics, Vol: 17, No: 1, 2005, 1-35.
• Lee, C.C. (2005), “Energy Consumption and GDP in Developing Countries: A Cointegrated Panel Analy- sis”, Energy Economics, 27(3), s. 415-427.
• Mauro, Paolo, “Corruption: Causes, Consequences and Agenda for Further Research”, Finance &Develop- ment, Vol: 35, No: 1, 1998, s. 11-14.
• Mo, Pak H., “Corruption and Economic Growth”, Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol: 29, No: 1, 2001, 66-79.
• Montinola, Gabriella R. - Robert W. Jackman, “Sour- ces of Corruption: A Cross-Country Study”, British Jour- nal of Political Science, Vol: 32, No: 1, 2002, s. 147-170.
• Okun, Arthur M., Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff, The Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC 1975.
• Olson, Mancur, The Rise and Decline of Nations: Eco- nomic Growth, Stagflation and Social Rigidities, Yale Uni- versity Press, New Haven 1982.
• Pazarlıoğlu, M.V. - Gürler, Ö.K. (2007), “Teleko- münikasyon Yatırımları ve Ekonomik Büyüme: Panel Veri Yaklaşımı”, Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 44(508): s. 35-43.
• Pedroni, P. (1999), “Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), s. 653- 670.
• Rabushka, Alvin, “Philosophical Aspects of Economic Freedom”, Walter Block and James C. W. Ahiakpor (Ed), Economic Freedom: Toward a Theory of Measurement, (pp. 23-56), The Fraser Institute, Vancouver 1991.
• Raz, Joseph, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford Univer- sity Press, New York 1986.
• Serra, Danila, “Empirical Determinants of Corrupti- on: A Sensitivity Analysis”, Public Choice, Vol: 126, No: 1-2, 2006, s. 225-256.
• Shabbir, Ghulam - Mumtaz Anwar, “Determinants of Corruption in Developing Countries”, The Pakistan De- velopment Review, Vol: 46, No: 4, 2007, s. 751-764.
• Svensson, Jakob, “Investment, Property Rights and Political Instability: Theory and Evidence”, European Eco- nomic Review, Vol: 42, No: 7, 1998, s. 1317-1341.
• Şanlısoy, Selim - Recep Kök, “Politik İstikrarsız- lık-Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği (1987- 2006)”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 25, Sayı: 1, 2010, s. 101-125.
• Tayyar, Ayşegül - Birol Çetin, “Liberal İktisadi Dü- şüncede Devlet”, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 14, Sayı: 1, 2013, s. 107-120.
• Treisman, Daniel, “The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol: 76, No: 3, 2000, s. 399-457.
• Vanberg, Viktor J., “Market and State: The Perspecti- ve of Constitutional Political Economy”, Freiburg Discus- sion Papers on Constitutional Economics, No: 04/10, 2004.
• Vatter, Miguel E., Between Form and Event: Machiavelli’s Theory of Political Freedom, Kluwer Acade- mic Publishers, Netherlands 2000.
• Wooldridge, J.M. (2009), Introductory Economet- rics: A Modern Approach (USA: Cengage Learning 4th Ed.).
• Yereli, Ahmet B., Ekonomik Özgürlükler ve Türkiye’de Devlet-Birey İlişkisi, Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara 2003.