THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ON ECONOMIC GROWTH IN EU COUNTRIES: PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 371 - 387, 20.06.2021

Tufan Sarıtaş , Alper Özmen

https://doi.org/10.46849/guiibd.931825

Öz

There are many empirical studies in the literature about the relationship between institutional factors and economic performance. In some of these studies, one-way relationships were observed among the relevant variables, and bilateral relationships were observed at others. In this research, based on the available literature, the possible impact of public institutional quality on economic growth in EU countries for the period of 2002-2019 was investigated. The institutional quality series used in the study; It was created by taking the arithmetic mean of the values of the series government efficacy, regulatory quality, control of corruption, rule of law, accountability, political stability and absence of violence / terrorism. In the findings obtained; It has been determined that the higher the institutional quality in the public, the higher the economic growth.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Public Administration, Institutional Quality, Growth, European Union, Panel Data Analysis

AB ÜLKELERİNDE KAMUDAKİ KURUMSAL KALİTENİN EKONOMİK BÜYÜMEYE ETKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Öz

Literatürde kurumsal faktörler ve ekonomik performans arasındaki ilişkiye dair birçok ampirik çalışma bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmaların bazısında ilgili değişkenler arasında tek yönlü bazısında ise çift yönlü ilişkiler gözlemlenmiştir. Bu araştırmada mevcut literatüre dayanarak, 2002-2019 dönemi için AB Ülkelerindeki kamudaki kurumsal kalitenin, ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki olası etkisi araştırılmıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan kurumsal kalite serisi; Hükümet etkinliği, düzenleyici kalite, yolsuzluğun kontrolü, hukukun üstünlüğü, hesap verebilirlik, siyasi istikrar ve şiddetin / terörizm yokluğu değerlerinin aritmetik ortalaması alınmak suretiyle oluşturulmuştur. Elde edilen bulgularda; kamudaki kurumsal kalite arttıkça, ekonomik büyümenin de arttığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kamu Yönetimi, Kurumsal Kalite, Büyüme, Avrupa Birliği, Panel Veri Analizi

Kaynakça

• Akyel, R. & Köse, H. Ö. (2010). Kamu Yönetiminde Etkinlik Arayışı: Etkin Kamu Yönetimi İçin Etkin Denetimin Gerekliliği. Türk İdare Dergisi, 466, 9-45.
• Apaza, C. R. (2009). Measuring Governance and Corruption Through the World wide Governance Indicators: Critiques, Responses, and Ongoing Scholarly Discussion. Political Science and Politics, 42(1), 139-143.
• Artan, S. & Hayaloğlu, P. (2014). Kurumsal Yapı ve İktisadi Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Sosyoekonomi, 2, 347-366.
• Aytun, C. & Akın, C. S. (2014). Kurumsal Kalite ve Ekonomik Büyüme: Panel Nedensellik Analizi. Çukurova Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 18(19, 89-100.
• Baltagi, B. & Wu, P. X. (1999). Unequally Spaced Panel Data Regression with AR(1) Disturbances. Econometric Theory, 15, 814-823.
• Bhargava, A., Franzini, L. & Narendranathan, W. (1982). Serial correlation and fixed effect models. The Review of Economic Studies, 49, 533-549.
• Burkhart, R. E., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1994). Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis. American Political Science Review, 88(4), 903-10.
• Dawson, J. W. (2003). Causality in the Freedom–Growth Relationship. European Journal of Political Economy, 19, 479-495.
• Dollar, D. & Kraay, A. (2000). Property Rights, Political Rights, and the Development of Poor Countries in the Post-Colonial Period. World Bank Working Papers.
• Driscoll J. C. & Kray, A. C. (1998). Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation with Spatially Dependent Panel Data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 549-560.
• Eryılmaz, B. (2018). Kamu Yönetimi: Düşünceler, Yapılar, Fonksiyonlar, Politikalar. Umuttepe Yayınları, 11. Baskı, Kocaeli.
• Graycar, A. & Sidebottom, A. (2012). Corruption and Control: a Corruption Reduction Approach. Journal of Financial Crime, 19(4), 384-399.
• Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, Nj: Prentice Hall.
• Güney, T. (2016). AB Üyesi Ülkelerde Yönetişimin Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Üzerindeki Etkisi: Panel Veri Analizi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 21(1), 193-205.
• Hausman J. A. (1978). Specification Test in Econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271.
• Helliwell, J. F. (1994). Empirical Linkages between Democracy and Economic Growth. British Journal of Political Science, 24(2), 225-48.
• Huynh, K. P. & Jacho-Chávez, D. T. (2009). Growth and Governance:A Nonparametric Analysis. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(1), 121-143.
• Karahan, H. & Karagöl, E. T. (2014). Ekonomik Performansın Temel Taşı: Siyasi İstikrar. Seta Perspektif, 41, 1-5.
• Lau, L. S., Choong, C. K. & Eng, Y. K. (2014). Carbon Dioxide Emission, Institutional Quality, and Economicgrowth: Empirical Evidence in Malaysia. Renewable Energy, 68, 276-281.
• Martin, S. X., (1997). I Just Ran Two Million Regressions. American Economic Review, 87(2), 178-183.
• Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 681-712.
• McKay, L. (2015). Toward a Rule of Law Culture: Exploring Effective Responses to Justice and Security Challenges. United States Institute of Peace, Washington, D.C.
• Nawaz, S., Iqbal, N. & Khan, M. A. (2014). The Impact of Institutional Quality on Economic Growth: Panel Evidence. The Pakistan Development Review, 53(1), 15-31.
• Nguyen, C. P., Su, T. D. & Nguyen, T. V. H. (2018). Institutional Quality and Economic Growth: The Case of Emerging Economies. Theoretical Economics Letters, 8, 1943-1956.
• Olson, M., Naveen S. & Swamy, A. V. (2000). Governance And Growth: A Simple Hypothesis Explaining Cross-CountryDifferences In Productivity Growth. Public Choice, 102, 341-364.
• Peseran, M. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests For Cross Section Dependence in Panels. IZA Discussion Paper, 1240, 1-39.
• Peseran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
• Salman, M., Long, X., Dauda, L. & Mensah, C. N. (2019). The impact of institutional quality on economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 1-15.
• Siddiqui, D. A. & Ahmed, Q. M. (2009). Institutions andEconomic Growth: Across Country Evidence. MPRA, Paper No. 19747.
• Şahin, D. (2018). MENA Ülkelerinde Kurumsal Kalite ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisinin Analizi. İktisadi Yenilik Dergisi, 5(1), 1-9.
• Tanzi, V. & Davodi, H. (1997). Corruption, Public Investment and Growth. IMF Working Paper.
• Ulubaşoğlu, M. A. & Doucouliagos, C. (2004). Institutions and Economic Growth: A Systems Approach. Econometric Society, Australasian Meetings Paper No. 63.
• Vega, G., M., & Alvarez, L. 2003. Economic Growth and Freedom: A Causality Study. Cato Journal, 23(2), 199-215.
• Yendi, İ. (2011). Avrasya Ülkelerinde Kurumsal Faktörlerin İktisadi Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkileri, International Conference on Eurasian Economies, SESSION 5C: Orta Asya Ekonomileri II, 357-362.
• Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2018). Panel veri ekonometrisi, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.