Kurumlar ve İktisadi Gelişme: Bootstrap Panel Granger Nedensellik Testi

Öz

Bu çalışmada kurumlar ve iktisadi gelişme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi Bootstrap panel Granger nedensellik analizi kullanılarak test edilmektedir. Örneklem oluşturulurken Dünya Bankası Atlas metoduna göre belirlenen gelir sınıflandırması referans alınmış ve üst orta gelir sınıfında yer alan G20 ülkelerine odaklanılmıştır. Dünya nüfusundan, dünya GSYİH’sinden ve küresel ticaretten aldıkları pay bakımından dikkate değer olan bu ülkeler aynı zamanda iktisadi gelişmişlik ve kurumsal kapasite olarak belirli bir düzeye ulaşmış olan ülkelerdir. Çalışma 1996-2019 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Üç farklı kurum değişkeni ile oluşturulan modellerde nedensellik ilişkisinin yönünün hem kullanılan kurum değişkenine karşı duyarlı olduğu hem de ülkeden ülkeye farklılık gösterdiği ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmada elde edilen bulgular kurumlar ve iktisadi gelişme arasında çift yönlü nedenselliği desteklese de toplam vaka sayısına göre yapılan değerlendirmede kurumlardan iktisadi gelişmeye doğru nedenselliğin daha güçlü olduğu görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumlar
• iktisadi gelişme
• bootstrap panel Granger nedensellik

Institutions and Economic Development: A Bootstrap Panel Granger Causality Test

Öz

In this study, the causality relationship between institutions and economic development was tested using bootstrap panel Granger causality analysis. The sample was created according to the World Bank Atlas method, focusing on the G20 countries in the upper-middle income class. These countries have reached a certain level in terms of economic development and institutional capacity in terms of having a relatively good and sustainable development performance among developing countries. These countries, which are remarkable in terms of their share in the world population, world GDP, and global trade, have also reached a certain level in terms of economic development and institutional capacity. The study covers the period 1996-2019. It was observed that the direction of the causality relationship is sensitive according to both the institution variable used and the country. Although the study findings support bidirectional causality between institutions and economic development, it was observed that causality from institutions to economic development is stronger according to the total number of cases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Institutions
• economic development
• bootstrap panel Granger causality

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369
2. Aixalá, J., & Fabro, G. (2007). A model of growth augmented with institutions. Economic Affairs, 27(3), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2007.00758.x
3. Akıncı, M., Yüce, G., & Yılmaz, Ö. (2014). Ekonomik özgürlüklerin iktisadi büyüme üzerindeki etkileri: Bir panel veri analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(2), 81–96. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ausbd/issue/15925/167473
4. Bergh, A., Mirkina, I., & Nilsson, T. (2014). Globalization and institutional quality – A panel data analysis. Oxford Development Studies, 42(3), 365–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2014.884555
5. Bloom, D. E., Steven, D., & Weston, M. (2004). Governance matters: The role of governance in Asian economic development. World Economics, 5(4), 53–79.
6. Breitung, J. (2005). A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data. Econometric Reviews, 24(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1081/ETC-200067895
7. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
8. Chang, H.-J. (2011). Institutions and economic development: Theory, policy and history. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(4), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137410000378

9. Chong, A., & Calderón, C. (2000). Causality and feedback between institutional measures and economic growth. Economics and Politics, 12(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0343.00069
10. Dawson, J. W. (2003). Causality in the freedom-growth relationship. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(3), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(03)00009-0
11. Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Institutions, trade, and growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 133–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00206-4
12. 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
13. Easterly, W., & Levine, R. (2003). Tropics, germs, and crops: How endowments influence economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 50(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00200-3
14. Farr, W. K., Lord, R. A., & Wolfenbarger, J. L. (1998). Economic freedom, political freedom, and economic well-being: A causality analysis. Cato Journal, 18(2), 247–262.
15. Glaeser, E. L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Do institutions cause growth? Journal of Economic Growth, 9(3), 271–303. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOEG.0000038933.16398.ed
16. Göcen, S. (2021). Gelişen ülkelerde ekonomik özgürlük ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi : Bootstrap panel Granger nedensellik testi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 35(3), 865–883. https://doi.org/10.16951/atauniiibd.797849
17. Haggard, S., & Tiede, L. (2011). The rule of law and economic growth: Where are we? World Development, 39(5), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.10.007
18. Hall, R. E., & Jones, C. I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399555954
19. Hurlin, C. (2004). Testing Granger causality in heterogenous panel data models with fixed coefficients. Université d’Orléans. https://www.afse.fr/global/gene/link.php?doc_id=139&fg=1
20. Justesen, M. K. (2008). The effect of economic freedom on growth revisited: New evidence on causality from a panel of countries 1970–1999. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(3), 642–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2008.06.003
21. Kar, M., Nazlıoğlu, Ş., & Ağır, H. (2011). Financial development and economic growth nexus in the MENA countries: Bootstrap panel Granger causality analysis. Economic Modelling, 28(1–2), 685–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.05.015
22. Kar, S., Roy, A., & Sen, K. (2019). The double trap: Institutions and economic development. Economic Modelling, 76, 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.08.002
23. Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Governance and growth: Causality which way ? -- Evidence for the World, in brief. World Bank Institute. https://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00818/WEB/PDF/GROWTH-3.PDF
24. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues (Policy Research Working Paper, No. 5430). The World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/630421468336563314/pdf/WPS5430.pdf
25. Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1995). Institutions and economic performance: Cross-Country tests using alternative institutional measures. Economics & Politics, 7(3), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.1995.tb00111.x
26. Koçak, E., & Uzay, N. (2018). Demokrasi, ekonomik özgürlükler ve ekonomik büyüme: Kurumların rolü üzerine bir araştırma. Sosyoekonomi, 26(36), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2018.02.05
27. 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
28. Kunčič, A. (2014). Institutional quality dataset. Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(1), 135–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137413000192
29. Law, S. H., Lim, T. C., & Ismail, N. W. (2013). Institutions and economic development: A Granger causality analysis of panel data evidence. Economic Systems, 37(4), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2013.05.005
30. Lee, K., & Kim, B. -Y. (2009). Both institutions and policies matter but differently for different income groups of countries: Determinants of long-run economic growth revisited. World Development, 37(3), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.07.004
31. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951731
32. Mahmood, K., & Azid, T. (2011). Economic freedom verses economic growth: Cross countries analysis in the form of ARDL approch. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 1(1), 14–25. https://archive.aessweb.com/index.php/5002/article/view/707/1156
33. Matthews, R. C. O. (1986). The economics of institutions and the sources of growth. The Economic Journal, 96(384), 903–918. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233164
34. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946696
35. Menyah, K., Nazlioglu, S., & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2014). Financial development, trade openness and economic growth in African countries: New insights from a panel causality approach. Economic Modelling, 37, 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.11.044
36. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97
37. North, D. C., & Thomas, R. P. (1973). The rise of the western world: A new economic history. Cambridge University Press.
38. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (Discussion Paper No. 1240). IZA Institute of Labor Economics. https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf
39. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
40. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
41. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
42. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2002). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development (NBER Working Paper, No. 9305). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9305/w9305.pdf
43. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131–165. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOEG.0000031425.72248.85
44. Ros, J. (2013). Rethinking economic development, growth & institutions. Oxford University Press.
45. Scully, G. W. (1988). The institutional framework and economic development. Journal of Political Economy, 96(3), 652–662. https://doi.org/10.1086/261555
46. Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
47. Vega-Gordillo, M., & Alvarez-Arce, J. L. (2003). Economic growth and freedom: A causality study. Cato Journal, 23(2), 199–215. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2003/11/cj23n2-4.pdf
48. Vianna, A. C., & Mollick, A. V. (2018). Institutions: Key variable for economic development in Latin America. Journal of Economics and Business, 96, 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECONBUS.2017.12.002