Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Sürecinde Gelir Eşitsizliği ve Orta Gelir Tuzağı: Gelir Düzeyine Göre Karşılaştırmalı Analiz

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, gelir eşitsizliğinin Orta Gelir Tuzağı üzerindeki etkisini ampirik olarak incelemek ve bu iki değişken arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisini kalkınma düzeyine duyarlı bir yaklaşımla analiz etmektir. Literatürde gelir eşitsizliği ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki sıklıkla ele alınmakla birlikte, bu ilişkinin Orta Gelir Tuzağı bağlamında ve özellikle farklı gelir gruplarına göre ayrıştırılarak nedensellik temelli biçimde incelendiği çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Bu doğrultuda çalışmada, orta gelirli ve yüksek gelirli ülkeler ayrı ayrı analiz edilerek karşılaştırmalı bir değerlendirme yapılmaktadır.
Yöntem: Çalışmada, 1995–2023 dönemine ait toplam 107 orta ve yüksek gelirli ülkeyi kapsayan panel veri seti kullanılmıştır. Ampirik analiz sürecinde sırasıyla Pesaran CIPS birim kök testi ve Westerlund panel eşbütünleşme testi uygulanmıştır. Eşbütünleşme tespitinin ardından FMOLS ve DOLS tahmincileri ile uzun dönemli ilişkinin yönü ve büyüklüğü belirlenmiştir. Son olarak Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel nedensellik testi ile kısa dönemli nedensellik ilişkileri analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Elde edilen bulgular, orta gelirli ülkelerde gelir eşitsizliği ile kişi başına düşen gelir arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve çift yönlü bir nedensellik olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu durum, eşitsizliğin büyümeyi sınırlayarak Orta Gelir Tuzağından çıkışı engellediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Yüksek gelirli ülkelerde de çift yönlü bir ilişki bulunmakla birlikte, etki daha zayıf düzeydedir.
Sonuç: Çalışma, gelir eşitsizliğinin kalkınma süreci üzerindeki etkilerinin ülke gruplarına göre farklılaştığını ortaya koyarak literatüre katkı sunmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, özellikle orta gelirli ülkelerde eşitsizliği azaltıcı politikaların sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve Orta Gelir Tuzağından çıkış açısından kritik bir rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda, eşitsizlikle mücadele yalnızca sosyal adaletin değil, aynı zamanda sürdürülebilir ve kapsayıcı ekonomik büyümenin de temel bir bileşeni olarak değerlendirilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gelir Eşitsizliği
• Orta Gelir Tuzağı
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Ekonomik Kalkınma
• Panel Nedensellik Analizi.

Income Inequality and the Middle-Income Trap in the Context of Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis by Income Level

Öz

Purpose: The primary aim of this study is to empirically examine the impact of income inequality on the Middle-Income Trap and to analyze the causal relationship between these two variables through a development-sensitive approach. While the relationship between income inequality and economic growth has been widely discussed in the literature, studies that investigate this relationship within the context of the Middle-Income Trap, particularly by differentiating across income groups and employing a causality-based framework, remain limited. In this context, the study conducts a comparative analysis by examining middle-income and high-income countries separately.
Methods: A panel dataset covering a total of 107 middle- and high-income countries for the period 1995–2023 is employed in this study. In the empirical analysis, the Pesaran CIPS unit root test and the Westerlund panel cointegration test are applied sequentially. Following the identification of cointegration, the direction and magnitude of the long-run relationship are estimated using FMOLS and DOLS estimators. Finally, short-run causality relationships are examined through the Dumitrescu–Hurlin panel causality test.
Findings: The results reveal a statistically significant and bidirectional causality between income inequality and per capita income in middle-income countries. This implies that inequality not only stems from but also actively shapes the growth process, making it harder to escape the Middle-Income Trap. In high-income countries, a similar bidirectional relationship is observed, though the impact of inequality on growth is relatively weaker.
Conclusion: The The study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that the effects of income inequality on the development process vary across country groups. The findings indicate that inequality-reducing policies play a particularly critical role for middle-income countries in achieving sustainable development and escaping the Middle-Income Trap. In this respect, addressing income inequality should be considered not only as a matter of social justice but also as a fundamental component of sustainable and inclusive economic growth.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Income Inequality
• Middle Income Trap
• Economic Growth
• Economic Development
• Panel Data Analysis.

Kaynakça

1. ACEMOĞLU, D., & JOHNSON, S. (2005). Unbundling Institutions. Journal of Political Economy, 113(5), 949–995. https://doi.org/10.1086/432166
2. ACEMOĞLU, D., & ROBINSON, J. (2013). Ulusların Düşüşü: Güç, Zenginlik ve Yoksulluğun Kökenleri. Doğan Kitap
3. AGHION, P., & HOWITT, P. (1992). A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323-351. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951599
4. AIYAR, S., & EBEKE, C. (2020). Inequality of Opportunity, Inequality of Income and Economic Growth. World Development, 136, 105115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105115
5. AIYAR, S., DUVAL, R., PUY, D., WU, Y., & ZHANG, L. (2013). Growth Slowdowns and the Middle-Income Trap, IMF Working Paper, No. 13/71. https://www.bookstore.imf.org/books/Growth-Slowdowns-and-the-Middle-Income-Trap
6. AKINCI, G. Y., & AKINCI, M. (2016). Ters-U Hipotezi Bağlamında Ekonomik Büyüme, Finansal Kalkınma ve Gelir Eşitsizliği Mekanizmaları Üzerine. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, (622), 61-77. https://www.ekonomikyorumlar.com.tr/sayi/622
7. ALESINA, A., & RODRIK, D. (1994). Distributive Politics and Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(2), 465-490. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118470
8. ALPDOĞAN, H. (2023). Türkiye’de Ekonomik Büyüme, Gelir Dağılımı ve Yoksulluk İlişkisi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 129, 259-290. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1280487

9. ATKINSON, A. B. (2018). Eşitsizlik: Ne Yapılabilir?. Efil Yayınevi.
10. BALTAGI, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Third Edition. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd
11. BANERJEE, A., & CARRION‐I‐SILVESTRE, J. L. (2017). Testing for Panel Cointegration Using Common Correlated Effects Estimators. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 38(4), 610-636. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsa.12234
12. BARRO, R. J. (2000). Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries. Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009850119329
13. BERG, A., & OSTRY, J. D. (2017). Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin?. IMF Econ Rev 65, 792–815. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41308-017-0030-8
14. BIRDSALL, N. (2006). Rising Inequality in the New Global Economy. International Journal of Development Issues, 5(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb045856
15. BIRDSALL, N. (2010). The (indispensable) Middle Class in Developing Countries; or, The rich and the Rest, Not the Poor and the Rest. Center for Global Development, Working Paper 207. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/indispensable-middle-class-developing-countries-or-rich-and-rest-not-poor-and-rest
16. BOURGUIGNON, F. (2004). The poverty-growth-inequality triangle. Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), Working Paper No. 28102. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/176147
17. BÖREKCİ DİLSİZLER, E. B., & YÜKSEL YILDIRIM, C. (2020). Gelir Dağılımı Eşitsizliği ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Seçilmiş AB Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Sosyal Beşeri ve Eğitim Bilimlerine Genel Bakış. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370440866_GELIR_DAGILIMI_ESITSIZLIGI_VE_EKONOMIK_BUYUME_ILISKISI_SECILMIS_AB_ULKELERI_UZERINE_BIR_UYGULAMA
18. BREITUNG, J. (2002). Nonparametric Tests for Unit Roots and Cointegration. Journal of Econometrics, 108(2), 343-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00139-7
19. CORNIA, G. A. (2004). Inequality, Growth and Poverty in the Era of Liberalization and Globalization. WIDER Studies in Development Economics. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199271410.001.0001
20. ÇAĞDAŞ, Y. (2025a). Ekonomik Büyüme ve Kalkınmanın Önündeki Engel: Gelir Eşitsizliği ve Orta Gelir Tuzağı İlişkisi. Maliye ve Finans Yazıları, 124, 291-315. https://doi.org/10.33203/mfy.1655958
21. ÇAĞDAŞ, Y. (2025b). Ekonomik Büyüme Sorunları Bağlamında Gelir Eşitsizliği: Kamu Maliyesi ve Yapısal Faktörler Perspektifi. Scientific Journal of Finance and Financial Law Studies, 5(2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.71284/sjffls.202522
22. ÇAĞDAŞ, Y., & SAVAŞAN, F. (2025). Orta Gelir Tuzağını Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi: İkili Panel Logit Model Analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(2), 262-284. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1577283
23. ÇÜTÇÜ, İ., ATAY, G., & AKKURT, A. (2020). Kalkınma-Gelir Dağılımı İlişkisi: Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerine Yapısal Kırılmalı Ekonometrik Analiz. Bartın Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(22), 448-466. https://doi.org/10.47129/bartiniibf.733358
24. DE FERRANTI, D., PERRY, G. E., FERREIRA, F. H. G., & WALTON, M. (2004). Inequality in Latin America: Breaking with History? World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-5665-8
25. DE HOYOS, R. E., & SARAFIDIS, V. (2006). Testing for Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel-Data Models. Stata Journal, 6(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600403
26. DUMITRESCU, E.-I., & HURLIN, C. (2012). Testing for Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
27. DÜNYA BANKASI (WORLDBANK) (2025). World Development Indicators (GINI Index Data Set, Atlas Method Per Capita KMG Data Set). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
28. EASTERLY, W. (2001). The Middle Class Consensus and Economic Development. Journal of Economic Growth, 6(4), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012786330095
29. EGAWA, A. (2013). Will Income Inequality Cause a Middle-Income Trap in Asia?. Bruegel Working Paper No. 2013/06.
30. EICHENGREEN, B., PARK, D., & SHIN, K. (2012). When Fast Growing Economies Slow Down: International Evidence and Implications for China. Asian Economic Papers, 11(1), 42-87. https://doi.org/10.1162/ASEP_a_00118
31. ENGLE, R. F., & GRANGER, C. W. (1987). Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 251-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913236
32. ERKİŞİ, K., & CEYHAN, T. (2020). İktisadi Büyüme ve Gelir Dağılımı Adaleti İlişkisi: Bir Panel Veri Analizi. Sosyoekonomi, 28(43), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.01.11
33. FELIPE, J., ABDON, A., & KUMAR, U. (2012). Tracking the Middle-Income Trap: What Is It, Who Is in It, and Why?. Levy Economics Institute Working Paper, No 715. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2049330
34. FORBES, K. J. (2000). A Reassessment of the Relationship Between Inequality and Growth. American Economic Review, 90(4), 869–887. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.869
35. GALOR, O., & MOAV, O. (2004). From Physical to Human Capital Accumulation: Inequality and the Process of Development. Review of Economic Studies, 71(4), 1001–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00312
36. GALOR, O., & ZEIRA, J. (1993). Income Distribution and Macroeconomics. Review of Economic Studies, 60(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297811
37. GILL, I., & KHARAS, H. (2007). An East Asian Renaissance: Ideas for Economic Growth. World Bank Publications.
38. GÖKSU, S., & KILIÇ, R. (2020). Gelir dağılımındaki eşitsizliğin belirleyicilerine yönelik panel nedensellik analizi: OECD ülkeleri örneği. Maliye Dergisi, 178, 82-97. https://www.hmb.gov.tr/maliye-dergisi-sayi178-ocak-haziran2020
39. GRANGER, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
40. GRANGER, C. W. J., & NEWBOLD, P. (1974). Spurious Regressions in Econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 2(2), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(74)90034-7
41. IM, K. S., PESARAN, M. H., & SHIN, Y. (2003). Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
42. ISLAM, S. N. (2015). Will Inequality Lead China to the Middle Income Trap?. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Working Paper No: 142. https://desapublications.un.org/working-papers/will-inequality-lead-china-middle-income-trap
43. JOHANSEN, S. (1988). Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2-3), 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1889(88)90041-3
44. KAO, C. (1999). Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2
45. KAO, C., & CHIANG, M.-H. (2001). On the Estimation and Inference of a Cointegrated Regression in Panel Data. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels (Vol. 15, pp. 179–222). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15007-8
46. KARAŞ, G. (2021). Gelir Dağılımı ve Kalkınma İlişkisi: BRICS-T Ülkeleri Örneği. Maliye Dergisi, 180, 233-251. https://www.hmb.gov.tr/maliye-dergisi-sayi180-ocak-haziran2021
47. KEEFER, P., & KNACK, S. (2008). Social Capital, Social Norms and the New Institutional Economics. In: Ménard, C., Shirley, M.M. (eds) Handbook of New Institutional Economics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69305-5_28
48. KÓNYA, L. (2006). Exports and Growth: Granger Causality Analysis on OECD Countries with a Panel Data Approach. Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2006.04.008
49. KUZNETS, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review, XLV (1), 1–28.
50. LEE, K. (2013). Schumpeterian Analysis of Economic Catch-up: Knowledge, Path-Creation, and the Middle-Income Trap. Cambridge University Press.
51. LEVIN, A., LIN, C. F., & CHU, C. S. J. (2002). Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
52. LOPEZ, L., & WEBER, S. (2017). Testing for Granger Causality in Panel Data. The Stata Journal, 17(4), 972–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801700412
53. MADDALA, G. S., & WU, S. (1999). A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
54. MARK, N. C., & SUL, D. (2003). Cointegration Vector Estimation by Panel DOLS and Long-Run Money Demand. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(5), 655–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2003.00066.x
55. MILANOVIC, B. (2016). Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization. Harvard University Press, Belknap Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjghwk4
56. NAZLIOĞLU, S. (2011). World Oil and Agricultural Commodity Prices: Evidence from Nonlinear Causality. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2935-2943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.001
57. NORTH, D. C. (2010). Kurumlar, Kurumsal Değişim ve Ekonomik Performans. 2. Baskı, İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayınları.
58. OECD. (2011). Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264119536-en
59. OECD. (2015). In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264235120-en
60. OECD. (2025). Income Inequality Data. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/income-inequality.html
61. OHNO, K. (2009). Avoiding the Middle-Income Trap: Renovating Industrial Policy Formulation in Vietnam. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 26(1), 25–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41317017
62. OSTRY, J. D., BERG, A., & TSANGARIDES, C. G. (2014). Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth. IMF Staff Discussion Note 14/02. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/staff-discussion-notes/issues/2016/12/31/redistribution-inequality-and-growth-41291
63. ÖZTÜRK, E., & OKTAR, S. (2017). Kalkınma Gelir Eşitsizliği İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 4(8), 101-123. https://izlik.org/JA58LG26RC
64. PEDRONI, P. (1999), Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61: 653-670. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1653
65. PEDRONI, P. (2001). Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels. In Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels, Badi H. Baltagi, Thomas B. Fomby, R. Carter Hill. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15004-2
66. PEDRONI, P. (2004). Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties of Pooled Time Series Tests with an Application to the PPP Hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20(3), 597–625. doi:10.1017/S0266466604203073
67. PERSSON, T., & TABELLINI, G. (1994). Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? American Economic Review, 84(3), 600–621. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2118070
68. PERSYN, D., & WESTERLUND, J. (2008). Error-Correction–Based Cointegration Tests for Panel Data. Stata Journal, 8(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.122588
69. PESARAN, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. University of Cambridge, Working Paper No. 0435. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
70. PESARAN, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
71. PHILLIPS, P. C. B., & HANSEN, B. E. (1990). Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I(1) Processes. Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297545
72. RODRIK, D. (2016). Premature Deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth, 21(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-015-9122-3
73. ROMER, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71-102. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937632
74. STIGLITZ, J. E. (2014). Eşitsizliğin Bedeli. İletişim Yayınları.
75. ŞENGÜR, M. (2020). Gelir Eşitsizliği ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Geçiş Ekonomileri Üzerine Panel Veri Analizi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 15(1), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.603523
76. UNCTAD. (2016). Trade and Development Report 2016: Structural Transformation for Inclusive and Sustained Growth. United Nations. https://unctad.org/publication/trade-and-development-report-2016
77. UNESCO (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report – Inclusion and Education: All Means All. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/publication/inclusion-and-education
78. WESTERLUND, J. (2007). Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
79. WILLIAMSON, J. (2015). Latin American Inequality: Colonial Origins, Commodity Booms, or a Missed 20th-Century Leveling?. NBER Working Papers 20915. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20915
80. WOOLDRIDGE, J. M. (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
81. YERDELEN TATOĞLU, F. (2020). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi. 5. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık