THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STABILITY OF LEGAL INSTITUTION AND REAL EXCHANGE RATES: THE EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS REGARDING NIC COUNTRIES

Öz

In this study, the relationship between the legal institutional index and the exchange rates was investigated through the Westerland panel cointegration analysis regarding newly industrialized countries. According to the results of the analysis carried out regarding newly industrialized countries NIC countries between the years 1994 to 2010,it was revealed by determining the presence of cointegration’s relationship between the legal institutional index,which has been considered as an element of political stability, and exchange rate that the legal institutional index have been effective on exchange rates

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Legal Institutions, Exchange Rate, Political Stability

Yasal Kurum İstikrarı Döviz Kuru İlişkisi: NIC Ülkeleri İçin Ampirik Analiz

Öz

Çalışmada, ekonomik performansın iki önemli göstergesi olan yasal kurum endeksi ve reel döviz kuru ilişkisi Westerland panel eşbütünleşme analizi ile araştırılmaktadır. 1994-2010 yılları yeni endüstrileşen ülkeler NIC ülkeleri için yapılan analiz sonuçlarına göre, politik istikrarın bir unsuru olarak yasal kurum endeksi ile döviz kuru arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin varlığı tespit edilerek, yasal kurum istikrarının döviz kurları üzerinde etkili olduğu ortaya konulmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yasal Kurumlar,Döviz Kuru,Politik İstikrar

Kaynakça

1. Acemoğlu Daron. ve James A. Robinson (2006), ‘‘Economic Backwardness in Political Perspective’’, American Political Science Rewiev, 100 (1), 115- 131.
2. Alesina Alberto (1987), ‘‘Macroeconomic Policy in Two Party System as a Repeated Game’’, Quartely Journal of Economics, 102(3), 651-678.
3. Alesina Alberto vd (1996), “Political Instability and Economic Growth”, Journal of Economic Growth, (1), 189-211.
4. Alesina Alberto. ve Perotti, R. (1994), “The Political Economy of Budget Deficits”, NBER Working Paper, National Bureauof Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass, No. 4637.
5. Alesino Alberto ve Tabellini Guido (1990), ‘‘A positive Theory of Fiscal Deficits and Goverment Dept’’, Review of Economic Studies,(57): 403-414.
6. Asteriou Dimitrios ve Price Simon (2001), ‘‘Political İnstability and Economic Growth: UK Time Series Evidence’’, Scottish Journal of Politicial Economy, 48 (4), 383-399.
7. Arslan Ünal (2011), ‘‘Siyasi İstikrarsızlık ve Ekonomik Performans: Türkiye Örneği’’, Ege Akademik Bakış, 11 (1), 73-80.
8. Aytun, Cengiz ve Cemil Serhat Akın (2014), ‘‘OECD Ülkelerinde Telekomünikasyon Altyapısı ve Ekonomik Büyüme: Yatay Kesit Bağımlı Heterojen Panel Nedensellik Analizi’’, İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 29(340), 69-94.

9. Brument Hakan ve Heckelman Jac C. (2005), ‘‘Fractionalization Effect and Goverment Financing’’, İnternational Journal of Applied Economics, 2,37-49.
10. Cangir Niyazi ve Turan Taner (2014), ‘‘Politik İstikrarsızlığın Bütçe Dengesi Üzerine Etkisi’’, Maliye Dergisi, 166, 243-266.
11. Demirgil Hakan (2011), ‘‘Politik İstikrarsızlık Belirsizlik ve Makroekonomi: Türkiye Örneği (1970:2006)’’, Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, XXXI (II), 123-144.
12. Downs, Anthony (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, NewYork.
13. Edwads Sebastian ve Tabellini Guido (1991), Politicial Instablity, Politicial Weakness and Inflation:An Empricial Analysis, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 42, 235-266.
14. Eren, Eren. Melike Bildirici (2001),’’Türkiye’de Siyasal ve İktisadi İstikrarsızlık; 1980–2001”, İktisat, İşletme ve Finans Dergisi, 16 (187), 27–33.
15. Gür Timur Han ve Akbulut Hale (2012), ‘‘Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Politik İstikrarın Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerine Etkisi’’, Sosyo Ekonomi 1, 282- 293.
16. Hibbs, Douglas (1977), ‘‘Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy’’, Amerian Political Science Review, 71 (4), 1467 -1487.
17. Kök Recep ve Şanlısoy Selim (2010), ‘‘Politik İstikrarsızlık Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Örneği (1987-2010)’’, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 25(1), 101-125.
18. Nordhaus, William D (1975), ‘‘The Politicial Business Cycle’’, Review of Economic Studies, 42 (2), 169-190.
19. Nazlıoğlu, S., Kayhan S. (2011) ‘‘Nuclear energy Consumption and Economic Growth in OECD Countries: Cross-sectionally Dependent Heterogeneous Panel Causality Analysis’’, Energy Policy, 39(10), 6615-6621.
20. Pesaran, M. Hashem (2007), ‘‘A simple panal unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence’’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
21. Rogoff K. Ve Sibert A. (1988), ‘‘Equilibrium Political Bısiness Cycles’’, Review of Economic Studies, 55, 1-16.
22. Şanlısoy Selim ve Kök Recep (2010), ‘‘Politik İstikrarsızlık ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi (1987-2006)’’, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 25(1),101- 125.
23. Tosun Mustafa U., Gran Cahit ö. Ve Ulucan Aydın (2008), The Political İnstability, İnvestment Profile and the Macroeconomic Performance of the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) Region, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 6(2), 31-38.