BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

“Ekonomik Performans ve Bürokrasi: Türkiye Örneği”

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 131 - 138, 01.12.2010

Ünal Arslan Yıldız Sağlam

https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

  • 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
  • From Cointegration and Error Correction Models”, Applied Economics, 27. 1995, 661-667.
  • 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.
  • Frye Timothy & Andrei Shleifer (1997), “The invisible Hand and Grabbing Hand”, The American Economic review. 87:2, 1997, 354-358.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Harris, Richard, I.D. (1995), Using Cointegration Analysis In Econometric Modelling,
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Knack Stephen & Philip Keefer, “Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures”, Economics and Politics, 7:3, 1995, 207-227.
  • Mauro, Paulo, “Corruption and growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110:3, 1995, 681
  • Mutluer Defne & Yasemin Barlas, “Modelling the Turkish Broad Money demand”, Central Bank Review, 2:2, 2002, 55-75.
  • 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
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Nee, Victor, (2009), “Bureaucracy and Financial Markets”, http://www.economyandsociety.org/publications/wp45_neeopper_09.pdf 04.2010] İndirme Tarihi:
  • 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]
  • The PRS Group, 2010. “PRS Methodology”, Political Risk Services, August 21, http://www.prsgroup.com/PRS_Methodology.aspx
  • Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez Bankası (TCMB), Elektronik Veri Dağıtım Sistemi (EVDS), www.tcmb.gov.tr.

EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 131 - 138, 01.12.2010

Ünal Arslan Yıldız Sağlam

https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY

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

  • 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
  • From Cointegration and Error Correction Models”, Applied Economics, 27. 1995, 661-667.
  • 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.
  • Frye Timothy & Andrei Shleifer (1997), “The invisible Hand and Grabbing Hand”, The American Economic review. 87:2, 1997, 354-358.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Harris, Richard, I.D. (1995), Using Cointegration Analysis In Econometric Modelling,
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Knack Stephen & Philip Keefer, “Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures”, Economics and Politics, 7:3, 1995, 207-227.
  • Mauro, Paulo, “Corruption and growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110:3, 1995, 681
  • Mutluer Defne & Yasemin Barlas, “Modelling the Turkish Broad Money demand”, Central Bank Review, 2:2, 2002, 55-75.
  • 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
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Nee, Victor, (2009), “Bureaucracy and Financial Markets”, http://www.economyandsociety.org/publications/wp45_neeopper_09.pdf 04.2010] İndirme Tarihi:
  • 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]
  • The PRS Group, 2010. “PRS Methodology”, Political Risk Services, August 21, http://www.prsgroup.com/PRS_Methodology.aspx
  • Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez Bankası (TCMB), Elektronik Veri Dağıtım Sistemi (EVDS), www.tcmb.gov.tr.
Toplam 20 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Yazarlar

Ünal Arslan Bu kişi benim

Yıldız Sağlam Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Aralık 2010
IZ https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2010 Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Arslan, Ü., & Sağlam, Y. (2010). EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 131-138. https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY
AMA 1.Arslan Ü, Sağlam Y. EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi. 2010;2(2):131-138. https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY
Chicago Arslan, Ünal, ve Yıldız Sağlam. 2010. “EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ”. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi 2 (2): 131-38. https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY.
EndNote Arslan Ü, Sağlam Y (01 Aralık 2010) EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi 2 2 131–138.
IEEE [1]Ü. Arslan ve Y. Sağlam, “EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ”, Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi, c. 2, sy 2, ss. 131–138, Ara. 2010, [çevrimiçi]. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY
ISNAD Arslan, Ünal - Sağlam, Yıldız. “EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ”. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi 2/2 (01 Aralık 2010): 131-138. https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY.
JAMA 1.Arslan Ü, Sağlam Y. EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi. 2010;2:131–138.
MLA Arslan, Ünal, ve Yıldız Sağlam. “EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ”. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi, c. 2, sy 2, Aralık 2010, ss. 131-8, https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY.
Vancouver 1.Ünal Arslan, Yıldız Sağlam. EKONOMİK PERFORMANS VE BÜROKRASİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi [Internet]. 01 Aralık 2010;2(2):131-8. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA48ND59NY