“Ekonomik Performans ve Bürokrasi: Türkiye Örneği”

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, bürokrasi ve ekonomik performans arasındaki ilişkinin değerlendirilmesi için ampirik (deneysel) bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır. Üç aylık veriler ve Johansen (1988) ve Johansen ve Juselius (1990) eş-bütünleşme analizi kullanılarak 1987Q1-2007Q3 dönemi için Türkiye’de GSYİH ve bürokrasi arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Sonuçlar, bürokrasi ve GSYİH arasında herhangi bir uzun-dönem denge ilişkisi göstermemiştir. Kısa-dönem ilişkilerin incelenmesi için bir Hata Düzeltme Modeli (HDM) oluşturulmuştur. Hata düzeltme modeline dayanarak bürokrasi ve GSYİH arasında herhangi bir nedensellik ilişkisine rastlanmamıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik Performans, Bürokrasi, Kurumlar

Kaynakça

1. Enders, Walter, Applied Econometric Time Series, John Willey and Sons inc., U.S.A. Canada, Choudhry Taufiq, “Long-run Money Demand Function in Argentina During 1935-1962:Evidence
2. From Cointegration and Error Correction Models”, Applied Economics, 27. 1995, 661-667.
3. Evans Peter & James E. Rauch, “Bureaucracy and Growth: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of “Weberian” State Structures on economic Growth”, American Sociological Review, :5, 1999, 748-765.
4. Frye Timothy & Andrei Shleifer (1997), “The invisible Hand and Grabbing Hand”, The American Economic review. 87:2, 1997, 354-358.
5. Grigorian David A. & Albert Martinez, “Industrial Growth and the Quality of Institutions: What Do (Transition) Economies Have to Gain From the Rule of Law?”, Policy Research Working Paper, No:2475, 2000, 1-19.
6. Hall, Robert E. & Charles I. Jones, “Why do Some Countries Produce so Much More Output per Worker than Other?”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114:1, 1999, 83-116
7. Harris, Richard, I.D. (1995), Using Cointegration Analysis In Econometric Modelling,
8. T.J.Press(Padstow) Ltd: Great Britain Johansen, Soren., “Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12 :2-3, 1988, 231–254.

9. Johansen, Soren & Katarina Juselius, “Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration– with applications to the demand for Money”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52:2, 1990, 169-210.
10. Knack Stephen & Philip Keefer, “Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures”, Economics and Politics, 7:3, 1995, 207-227.
11. Mauro, Paulo, “Corruption and growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110:3, 1995, 681
12. Mutluer Defne & Yasemin Barlas, “Modelling the Turkish Broad Money demand”, Central Bank Review, 2:2, 2002, 55-75.
13. Sriram S. Subramanian, “Survey of Literature on Demand For Money:Theoretical and Empirical Work with Special Reference to Error Corerction Models”, International Monetary Fund, 1999, 1
14. Gillette Ryan, (2008), “The Effect of Bureaucracy on Corruption: Evidence from the Regions of the Russian Federation” , http://dspace.nitle.org/bitstream/handle/10090/6339/s10econ2008gillette.pdf?sequence=1 İndirme Tarihi: 29.04.2010]
15. Higbee Jason & Frank A. Schmid (2004), “Rule of Law and Economic Growth”, http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/04/ES0419.pdf [İndirme Tarihi: 23.04.2010]
16. Libman, Alexander, (2008), “Democracy, Size of Bureaucracy, and Economic Growth: Evidence from Russian Regions”, http://www2.hhs.se/site/seminarsndevents/Seminar%20articles/Democracy_Libman.pdf [İndirme Tarihi: 23.04.2010]
17. Nee, Victor, (2009), “Bureaucracy and Financial Markets”, http://www.economyandsociety.org/publications/wp45_neeopper_09.pdf 04.2010] İndirme Tarihi:
18. Okten Cagla (2001), “Does the Size of the Bureaucracy Matter?” http://www.bus.lsu.edu/economics/papers/pap01_15.pdf [İndirme Tarihi: 23.04.2010]
19. The PRS Group, 2010. “PRS Methodology”, Political Risk Services, August 21, http://www.prsgroup.com/PRS_Methodology.aspx
20. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez Bankası (TCMB), Elektronik Veri Dağıtım Sistemi (EVDS), www.tcmb.gov.tr.