Causality relationships between institutional indicators and human development in Türkiye: A Fourier Toda–Yamamoto Approach

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1 , 352 - 366 , 26.03.2026

Lütfü Sizer

https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1827136

https://izlik.org/JA86HK37KF

Öz

This study examines the causal relationships between institutional quality and human development in Turkey. The Human Development Index (HDI) provides a multidimensional measure of welfare by combining income, education, and life expectancy indicators. Although the influence of institutions on human development has been widely explored, studies incorporating structural breaks remain scarce. This limitation is crucial for Turkey, where institutional indicators have experienced periodic fluctuations, making advanced econometric approaches necessary. Using annual data from 1996–2024, the study analyzes the relationship between HDI and four subcomponents of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI)—Control of Corruption (CC), Government Effectiveness (GE), Regulatory Quality (RQ), and Rule of Law (RL)—through the Fourier Toda–Yamamoto causality framework. Stationarity was tested using the Augmented Dickey–Fuller and Fourier KPSS tests, while the optimal lag length was selected according to information criteria. The results reveal bidirectional causality between HDI and regulatory quality, and between regulatory quality and rule of law, while unidirectional causality flows from government effectiveness and rule of law to HDI. These findings emphasize that effective governance and institutional reforms play a crucial role in enhancing human development. The study contributes methodologically to the literature and provides policy guidance for promoting sustainable human progress in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Human development index , Institutional quality , Fourier Toda–Yamamoto

Türkiye’de kurumsal göstergeler ile insani gelişmişlik arasındaki nedensellik ilişkileri: Fourier Toda–Yamamoto Yaklaşımı

https://izlik.org/JA86HK37KF

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de kurumsal kalite ile insani gelişmişlik arasındaki nedensellik ilişkilerini incelemektedir. İnsani Gelişmişlik Endeksi (İGE), gelir, eğitim ve yaşam süresi göstergelerini birleştirerek refahın çok boyutlu bir ölçüsünü sunmaktadır. Kurumların insani gelişme üzerindeki etkisi literatürde geniş biçimde incelenmiş olsa da, yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Bu eksiklik, kurumsal göstergelerde dönemsel dalgalanmalar yaşayan Türkiye açısından daha gelişmiş ekonometrik yaklaşımların kullanılmasını gerekli kılmaktadır. 1996–2024 dönemine ait yıllık veriler kullanılarak, İGE ile Dünya Yönetişim Göstergeleri’nin (WGI) dört alt bileşeni—Yolsuzluk Kontrolü (CC), Hükûmet Etkinliği (GE), Düzenleyici Kalite (RQ) ve Hukukun Üstünlüğü (RL)—arasındaki ilişkiler Fourier Toda–Yamamoto nedensellik çerçevesiyle analiz edilmiştir. Durağanlık, Genişletilmiş Dickey–Fuller ve Fourier KPSS testleriyle incelenmiş; optimal gecikme uzunluğu bilgi kriterlerine göre belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar, İGE ile düzenleyici kalite ve düzenleyici kalite ile hukukun üstünlüğü arasında çift yönlü; hükûmet etkinliği ve hukukun üstünlüğünden İGE’ye doğru ise tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkileri olduğunu göstermektedir. Bulgular, etkin yönetişim ve kurumsal reformların insani gelişmişliği artırmada kritik rol oynadığını vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, literatüre yöntemsel katkı sağlamakta ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma politikalarına yön göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnsani gelişmişlik endeksi , Kurumsal kalite , Fourier Toda–Yamamoto

Kaynakça

• 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
• Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.
• Agnello, L., Castro, V., & Sousa, R. M. (2017). Economic growth, environmental degradation and public spending: The role of institutions. Journal of International Money and Finance, 74, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2017.02.003
• Ahmad, N., & Saleem, H. (2021). Institutional quality and human development: Evidence from developing countries. Journal of Economic Studies, 48(6), 1198–1214. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-03-2020-0118
• Akçacı, T., & Sezgin, S. (2020). Kurumsal yönetişim ve insani gelişme ilişkisi: Türkiye üzerine bir analiz. İktisadi Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(2), 45–60.
• Banik, B., Roy, C. K., & Hossain, R. (2023). Healthcare expenditure, good governance and human development. EconomiA, 24(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econ.2022.06.002
• Barro, R. J. (1999). Determinants of democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 107(S6), S158–S183. https://doi.org/10.1086/250107
• Becker, R., Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2006). A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x
• Bilan, Y., Mishchuk, H., & Roshchyk, I. (2020). Institutional determinants of human development: Evidence from EU countries. Sustainability, 12(4), 1520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041520
• Brixiová, Z., Égert, B., & Essid, J. (2015). The effects of institutions and policies on economic development: Evidence from transition economies. Economic Systems, 39(2), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2014.10.002
• Chong, A., & Calderón, C. (2000). Institutional quality and income distribution. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(4), 761–786. https://doi.org/10.1086/452480
• Doucouliagos, H., & Ulubaşoğlu, M. A. (2008). Democracy and economic growth: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00244.x
• 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
• Enders, W., & Jones, P. (2016). Grain prices, oil prices, and multiple smooth breaks in a VAR. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 20(4), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1515/snde-2014-0082
• Ejuvbekpokpo, S. A. (2016). The impact of institutional quality on human development in Sub-Sahara African countries (Doctoral dissertation). Universiti Utara Malaysia. https://etd.uum.edu.my/6392/1/s94814_01.pdf
• Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12035
• 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
• Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Grimm, M., Harttgen, K., Klasen, S., & Misselhorn, M. (2010). Inequality in human development: An empirical assessment of 32 countries. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9497-6
• Grindle, M. S. (2010). Good governance: The inflation of an idea. Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research Working Paper Series, RWP10–023.
• Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., & Alonso-Terme, R. (2002). Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty? Economics of Governance, 3(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101010100039
• Holmberg, S., Rothstein, B., & Nasiritousi, N. (2009). Quality of government: What you get. Annual Review of Political Science, 12(1), 135–161. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100608-104510
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200046
• Kosack, S. (2003). Effective aid: How democracy allows development aid to improve the quality of life. World Development, 31(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00177-8
• Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946696
• Molla, A. (2021). Education, human capital, and inequality: Evidence from developing countries. International Journal of Development Issues, 20(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDI-08-2020-0201
• Nazlioglu, S., Gormus, N. A., & Soytas, U. (2016). Oil prices and real estate investment trusts (REITs): Gradual-shift causality and volatility transmission analysis. Energy Economics, 60, 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.001
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
• Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Hall, J. H., & Nair, M. (2013). Causal nexus between economic growth, banking sector development, stock market development, and other macroeconomic variables: The case of ASEAN countries. Review of Financial Economics, 22(4), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2013.07.002
• Rajkumar, A. S., & Swaroop, V. (2008). Public spending and outcomes: Does governance matter? Journal of Development Economics, 86(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.08.003
• Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x
• Sacks, D. W., & Levi, M. (2010). Measuring government effectiveness and its consequences for social welfare. World Development, 38(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.10.007
• Safdar, S., Khan, A., & Andlib, Z. (2022). Impact of good governance and natural resource rent on economic and environmental sustainability: An empirical analysis for South Asian economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 82948–82965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21401-9
• Saha, S., & Gounder, R. (2013). Corruption and economic development nexus: Variations across income levels in a non-linear framework. Economic Modelling, 31, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.11.012
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
• Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1–2), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8
• Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC hypothesis with Fourier approach: The role of urbanization, energy consumption, and trade openness. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(39), 39003–39020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3834-9
• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2024). Human Development Report 2024.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2016). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• World Bank. (2019). Systematic country diagnostic for Turkey. World Bank Publications.
• Wudil, A. A., Saad, N. M., Lacheheb, Z., & Muhammad, R. (2024). Government budgets and social development in Africa: Moderating effect of government effectiveness. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 13(1), 1–15.