MERKEZ-ÇEVRE İLİŞKİLERİNDE GELİŞMİŞLİK DÜZEYİ AÇISINDAN ÜLKELER ARASI KURUMSAL KALİTE FARKLILIKLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Kurumsal iktisat yaklaşımı, kurumların sosyal ve ekonomik yaşamı kapsamlı bir şekilde ele alarak toplumsal refahı artırmada önemli bir faktör olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Aynı zamanda kurumsal iktisat yaklaşımı kalkınma literatüründe tartışılan sorunlara benzer bir düzlemde ilerlemektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kurumsal kalite farklılıklarına göre merkez, yarı çevre ve çevre ülkelerdeki ülkeler arası gelişmişlik farklılıklarını değerlendirmektir. Çalışmada, analizin ilk bölümünde 1990-2017 yılları arasındaki veriler kullanılarak merkez (üst ve alt), yarı çevre (üst, orta ve alt) ve çevre (üst, orta ve alt) ülke grupları kulüp yakınsama yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Analizin ikinci bölümünde, sekiz ülke grubu için ülkeler arası gelişmişlik farklılıklarını açıklayan kurumsal yaklaşım test edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular sonucunda merkez, yarı çevre ve çevre ülkelerin tüm alt gruplarında ekonomik özgürlüğün kalkınma üzerindeki etkisi ortaya konmuştur. Ayrıca demokrasinin kalkınma üzerindeki etkisi merkez ve yarı çevre ülke gruplarında artan bir etkiye sahipken, çevre ülkelerdeki sonuçlar istatistiksel olarak anlamsızdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal Kalite
• Kulüp Yakınsama Metodu
• Merkez-Çevre
• Eşbütünleşme Analizi.

EVALUATION OF INTER-COUNTRY INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT IN COREPERIPHERY RELATIONS

Öz

Institutional economics approach reveals that institutions are essential in increasing social welfare by comprehensively addressing social and economic life. At the same time, institutional economics approach proceeds similarly to the problems discussed in the development literature. This study evaluates the developmental differences between countries in core, semi-periphery and periphery countries according to institutional quality differences. In the first part of the analysis, the core (upper and lower), semi-periphery (upper, middle and lower) and periphery (upper, middle, and lower) country groups were determined by the club convergence method using the data between 1990 and 2017. The second part of the analysis tests the institutional approach that explains the development differences between countries for eight country groups. Findings have revealed the effect of economic freedom on development in all subgroups of core, semi-periphery, and peripheral countries. In addition, while the effect of democracy on development has an increasing effect in core and semi-periphery country groups, the results in peripheral countries are found statistically insignificant.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Institutional Quality
• Club Convergence Method
• Core-Periphery
• Co-integration Analysis.

Kaynakça

1. Akpan, G. E. & Effiong, L. E. (2012). Governance and development performance: A cross-country analysis of Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 3(14).
2. Bergougui, B., Sami, L. & Talbi, B. (2017). Natural resources, institutional quality and economic development in oil-rich countries: The case of Arab Countries. Les Cahiers du MECAS, 15, December.
3. BM (2017). Human Development Report http://www.hdr.undp.org/.
4. Casson, M. C., Guista, M. D. & Kambhampati, U. S. (2010). Formal and informal institutions and development. World Development, 38(2), 137– 141.
5. Chang, H. (2011). Institutions and economic development: Theory, policy and history. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(4), 473–498.
6. Chong, A. & Calderon, C. (2000). Institutional quality and poverty measures in a cross-section of countries. Economics of Governance, 1, 123-135.
7. Çukurçayır, S. & Tezcan, K. (2011). Demokratikleşme ve ekonomik kalkınma: Etkileşim analizi. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 6(2).
8. Earle, L. & Scott, Z. (2010). Assessing the evidence of the impact of governance on development outcomes and poverty reduction. GSDRC Issues Paper.

9. Evans, P. (2008). In Search of The 21st Century Developmental State, GGPE/University of Sussex, Brighton, Working Paper No:4, 3.
10. Fabro, G. & Aixalá, J. (2009). Economic growth and institutional quality: Global and income-level analyses. Journal of Economic Issues, 43(4), 997-1023.
11. Fleitas, S., Ruis, A., Román, C. & Willebald, H. (2011). Economic development and institutional quality in Uruguay: Contract enforcement, investment and growth since 1870. Project Instituciones e Inversión en el Uruguay.
12. Heritage Foundation (2016). http://www.heritage.org/index/explore
13. Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and The Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975, California, Stanford University Press, 1982, 317-318
14. Kaufmann D., Kraay, A. & Zoido-Lobaton, P. (1999). Governance matters. Policy Research Working Paper, 2196.
15. 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, 610-624.
16. McCoskey S. & Kao C. (1998). A panel data investigation of the relationship between urbanization and growth, Regional 9805004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
17. Narayan, K. P. & Smyth, R. (2006). Democracy and economic growth in China: Evidence from cointegration and causality testing. Review of Applied Economics, 2(1), 81-98.
18. Okoi, O. & Bassey, C. (2015). Institutional quality, macroeconomic policy and economic development in Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Development Studies, 3(2), 140-145.
19. Panapoulou, E. & Pantelidis, T. (2009). Club Convergence in Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Environmental & Resource Economics, 44(1), 47-70.
20. Peseran, H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels, University of Cambridge. Working Paper, 0435.
21. Peseran, H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
22. Phillips, P.C.B. & Sul, D. (2007). Transition modeling and econometric convergence tests. Econometrica, 75, 1771–1855.
23. Phillips, P.C.B., & Sul, D. (2009). Economic transition and growth. Journal Applied Economics, 24(7), 1153– 1185.
24. Sunde, U. (2006). Economic development and democracy – is democracy a prosperity engine or a product of prosperity?. Perspectives of Economic Policy, 7, 471-499.
25. Tavares, J. & Wacziarg, R. (2001). How democracy affects growth, European Economic Review, 45(8), 1341-1378. V-Dem (2017); https://www.v-dem.net/en/data/data-version-8,
26. Westerlund, J. & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185-190.