KURUMSAL KALİTE, EKONOMİK ÖZGÜRLÜKLER VE GELİR DAĞILIMI İLİŞKİSİ: MINT ÜLKELERİ ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

1980 sonrası bilişim teknolojileri başta olmak üzere birçok alanda yaşanan gelişmeler küreselleşme, ekonomik özgürlük ve kurumsal kalite düzeyindeki artışları hızlandırmıştır. Ekonomik özgürlüklerin, küreselleşme eğilimlerinin ve kurumsal kalitenin artması ekonomik büyüme, enflasyon ve gelir dağılımı gibi temel ekonomik değişkenler üzerinde önemli etkiler meydana getirmektedir. Bu etkiler ülkeden ülkeye farklılık göstermekle birlikte, etkilerin yönü konusunda tartışmalar mevcuttur. Özellikle küreselleşme, ekonomik özgürlükler ve kurumsal kalitedeki artışın gelir dağılımına etkisi konusunda araştırmacılar arasında bir konsensüse varılabilmiş değildir. Bununla birlikte birçok ülkede küreselleşme, ekonomik özgürlük, kurumsal kalite, dışa açıklık ve demokrasi düzeyi artıkça başlangıçta gelir eşitsizliğinin arttığı daha sonra ekonomik gelişmeyle birlikte gelir eşitsizliğinin azalma trendine girdiği görülmektedir. Çalışmada; kurumsal kalite, ekonomik özgürlükler, küreselleşme, dışa açıklık, demokrasi ve doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarının gelir eşitsizliği üzerindeki etkileri 2000-2012 döneminde panel veri analiz yöntemi kullanılarak MINT ülkeleri için test edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar ülkelerin dış dünya ile ticari, ekonomik, politik ve sosyal entegrasyonundaki artışların, ülkelerin kurumsal yapılarındaki iyileşmelerin ve ülkedeki ekonomik özgürlük düzeyindeki artışların gelir eşitsizliğini azalttığını, buna karşılık demokrasi seviyesi ve doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlarındaki artışların gelir dağılımı eşitsizliğini artırdığını ortaya koymaktadır.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gelir Eşitsizliği,Kurumsal Kalite,Panel Veri Analizi,Ekonomik Özgürlük,Panel Veri Analizi

THE RELATIONSHIPS OF INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY, ECONOMIC FREEDOMS AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION: A CASE OF THE MINT COUNTRIES

Öz

After 1980s, developments in many areas, especially in information technologies, have accelerated the increase in globalization, economic freedom and institutional quality. These increasing trends have important effects on basic economic variables such as economic growth, inflation and income distribution. These effects differ from country to country and there are debates about the direction of the effects. There has been no consensus among researchers on the impact of the increase in globalization, economic freedoms, and institutional quality on income distribution. Nevertheless, if globalization, economic freedom, institutional quality, openness and democracy levels increase in many countries, at the beginning income inequality increase, but later income inequality decrease after economic development. In this study; the effects of institutional quality, economic freedoms, globalization, openness, democracy and foreign direct investments on income inequality between 2000 and 2012 were analyzed for the MINT countries using panel data analysis. The obtained results demonstrated that the increase in the nations’ commercial, economic, political and social integration with the outside world, improvements in the nations’ organizational structures and degree of economic freedom diminish income inequality, whereas the rise in the level of democracy and foreign direct investments increases income inequality.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Income Inequality,Institutional Quality,Panel Data Analysis,Economic Freedom,Panel Data Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Acemoğlu, D. ve Robinson, J. A. (2000). Why did the west extend the franchise? democracy, inequality, and growth in historical perspective. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (4), 1167-1199.
2. Apergis, N., Dinçer, O. ve Payne, J. (2014), Economic Freedom and Income Inequality Revisited: Evidence from a Panel Error Correction Model. Contemporary Economic Policy, 32 (1), 67-75.
3. Atif, S. M., Srivastav, M., Sauytbekova, M. ve Arachchige, U. K. (2012). Globalization and income inequality: A panel data analysis of 68 countries. MPRA Working Paper No.42385.
4. Babones, S. J. ve Vonada, D. (2009). Trade globalization and national income inequality–Are they related?. Journal of Sociology, 45 (1), 5-30.
5. Berggren, N. (1999). Economic freedom and equality: Friends or foes?. Public Choise, 100, 203-223.
6. Bergh, A. ve Nilsson, T. (2010). Do liberalization and globalization increase income inequality?. European Journal of Political Economy, 26 (4), 488-505.
7. Bollen, K. A. ve Jackman, R. W. (1985). Political democracy and the size distribution of income. American Sociological Review, 50 (4), 438-457.
8. Calderon, C. ve Chong, A. (2001). External sector and income inequality in interdependent economies using a dynamic panel data approach. Economics Letters, 71, 225-231.

9. Carter J. R. (2006). An Empirical Not on Economic freedom and income inequality. Public Choice, 130, 163-177.
10. Castro, G. A. (2011). The Effect of trade and foreign direct investment on inequality: Do governance and macroeconomic stability matter?. Economia Mexicana, 20(1), 181-219.
11. Chakrabarti, A. (2000). Does trade cause inequality?. Journal of Economic Development, 25 (2), 1-21.
12. Choi, C. (2006). Does foreign direct investment affect domestic income inequality?. Applied Economics Letters, 13, 811–814.
13. Chong, A. (2001). Inequality, democracy, and persistence: Is there a political kuznets curve?. Inter-American Development Bank Research Department Working Paper No.445.
14. Chong, A. ve Calderon, C. (2000).Institutional quality and income distribution. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48 (4), 761-786.
15. Chong A. ve Gradstein M. (2007). Inequality and institutions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89 (3), 454–465.
16. Dreher, A. ve Gaston, N. (2007). Has globalization increased inequality. Gloablization and Development Centre (GDC) Working Papers.
17. Easaw, J. ve Savoia, A. (2009). Inequality in developing economies: The role of institutional development. ecineq working papers No: 121.
18. Edwars, S. (1997). Trade policy, growth, and income distribution. The American Economic Review, 87 (2), 205-210.
19. Franco, C. ve Gerussi, E. (2012). Trade, foreign direct investment (fdi) and income inequality: Empirical evidence from transition countries. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 22 (8), 1-30.
20. Gradstein, M. (2007). Inequality, democracy and the protection of property rights. The Economic Journal, 117 (516), 252-269.
21. Gradstein, M., Milanovic, B. ve Ying, Y. (2001). Democracy and income inequality an empirical analysis. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers No. 2561.
22. Gwartney, J., Lawson, W. ve Hall, J. (2015). Economic Freedom of the World. 2015 Annual Report. Fraser Institute.
23. Halmos, K. (2011). The effect of FDI, exports and GDP on income inequality in 15 Eastern European Countries. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 8 (1), 123-136.
24. Hamanaka, S. (2008). Inequality and authoritarianism in the developing countries. MPRA Paper 16798. Erişim adresi http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16798/
25. Herzer, D. ve Nunnenkamp, P. (2011). FDI and income inequality: Evidence from Europe. Kiel Working Paper No.1675.
26. Hewitt, C. (1977). The effect of political democracy and social democracy on equality in industrial societies: A cross-national comparison. Amer-ican Sociological Review, 42 (3), 450-464.
27. Houle, C. (2009). Inequality and democracy: Why inequality harms consolidation but does not affect democratization. World Politics, 61 (4), 589 622.
28. ICRG (2013), International country risk guide (Uluslararası Ülke Risk Rehberi; Ekonomik ve Finansal Risk Servisi).
29. KOF (2016, 25 Nisan). KOF index of globalization. Erişim adresi http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/
30. Lee, C. S. (2005). Income inequality, democracy, and public sector size. American Sociological Review, 70, 158-181.
31. Lee, J. E. (2006). Inequality and globalization in Europe. Journal of Policy Modeling, 28 (7), 791-796.
32. Lindert, P. H. ve Williamson J. G. (2001). Does Globalization make the world more equal?. NBER Working Papers No.8228.
33. Muller, E. N. (1988). Democracy, economic development and income inequality. American Sociological Review, 53 (1), 50-68.
34. Perez-Moreno A. ve Angulo-Guerero M. J. (2016). Does economic freedom increase income inequality? Evidence from the EU Countries. Jour-nal of Economic Policy Reform, 1-21, Erişim adresi http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2015.1128832
35. Polity IV (2016). Polity IV Project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2013. Erişim adresi http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm
36. Reuveny, R. ve Li, Q. (2003). Economic openness, democracy and income inequality: An empirical analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 36(5), 575-601.
37. Scully G. W. (2002). Economic freedom, government policy and the tradeoff between equity and economic growth. Public Choice, 113, 77-96.
38. Sonin, K. (2003). Why the rich may favor poor protection of property rights. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31 (4), 715-731.
39. SWIID (2016, 25 Nisan). The standardized world income inequality database. Erişim adresi http://fsolt.org/swiid/
40. Tsai, P.L. (1995). Foreign direct investment and income inequality: Further evidence. World Development, 23 (3), 469-483.
41. UNCTADSTAD (2016, 3 Temmuz). United nations conference on trade and development. Erişim adresi http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
42. Velde, D. W. ve Morrissey, O. (2004). Foreign direct investment, skills and wage inequality in East Asia. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 9 (3), 348-369.
43. Velde, D. W. (2003). Foreign direct investment and income inequality in Latin America. Overseas Development Institute No. 1298.
44. Zang, X. ve Zang, K. H. (2010). How does globalization affect regional inequality within a developing country? Evidence from China. The Journal of Development Studies,39 (4), 47-67.