Political Economy of Property Rights: Sample Country Cases

Öz

Property rights are the main component of liberal economic system. Therefore, free market economies support institutional mechanism and political economic performance of the countries. More specifically, property rights protection and income inequality are the key legal and economic factors for economic growth. However, literature is lack in order to explain the relationship between property rights protection and income inequality in a theoretical and statistical way. This paper aims to fill these gaps with political economic perspective and through simple country analysis. It is important to show this relationship in order to show up the substitutability of legal protection of property rights with the political economic perspective in the event of income inequality. Especially developing countries are under the impact of efficient or inefficient institutions and political economic problems. In order to verify our hypothesis, this study try to reveal whether or not property rights protection and income inequality have a negative relationship simply. It is chosen Russia and Turkey as sample states and simple ordinary correlation analysis has done. The empirical results show the negative correlation between income inequality and legal protection of property rights under relevant conditions. Empirical results are consistent with the theoretical background and literature review part of this study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• political economy
• property rights
• income inequality
• Russia
• Turkey

Political Economy of Property Rights: Sample Country Cases

Öz

Mülkiyet hakları, liberal ekonomik sistemin ana ve içkin öğesidir. Bu nedenle serbest piyasa ekonomileri, ülkelerin kurumsal mekanizmalarını ve politik ekonomik performanslarını desteklemektedir. Daha spesifik olarak, mülkiyet haklarının korunması ve gelir eşitsizliği, ekonomik büyüme için kilit yasal ve ekonomik faktörlerdir. Ancak literatür mülkiyet haklarının korunması ile gelir eşitsizliği arasındaki ilişkiyi teorik ve istatistiksel olarak açıklamak için yetersiz kalmaktadır. Bu makale, söz konusu boşlukları politik ekonomik bakış açısıyla ve basit bir ülke analizi aracılığı ile gidermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Gelir eşitsizliği durumunda mülkiyet haklarının yasal korunmasının politik ekonomik bakış açısı ile ikame edilebilirliğini ortaya koymak için bu ilişkiyi göstermek önemlidir. Özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkeler etkin veya etkin olmayan kurumların ve politik ekonomik sorunların etkisi altındadır. Bu çalışma, hipotezimizi test etmek amacıyla, mülkiyet haklarının korunması ile gelir dağılımı arasında negatif bir ilişkisi olup olmadığını basitçe ortaya koymaya çalışmaktadır. Örnek devletler olarak Rusya ve Türkiye seçilmiş ve basit sıradan korelasyon analizi yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, gelir eşitsizliği ile ilgili koşullar altında mülkiyet haklarının yasal olarak korunması arasında negatif bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir. Ampirik sonuçların, bu çalışmanın teorik arka planı ve literatür taraması ile uyumlu olduğu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Political Economy
• Property Rights
• Income inequality
• Russia
• Turkey

Kaynakça

1. Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. A., and Verdier, T. (2004). Kleptocracy and divide-and-rule: A model of personal rule. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2 (2–3): 162–192,
2. Alesina, A. and Rodrik, D. (1994). Distributive politics and economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(2): 465-490.
3. Ball, G.G. and Kesan, J.P. (2010). Judges, courts and economic development: The impact of judicial human capital on the efficiency and accuracy of the court System. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the International Society for New Institutional Economics, Stanford University, June 16-18.
4. Benabou, R. (1996). Inequality and growth. In: NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 11-74, MIT Press.
5. Besley, T. and Ghatak, M. (2009). Property rights and economic development. In: Handbook of Development Economics, Edited by Rodrik, D. and Rosenzweig, M., 4525–4595, Elsevier.
6. Clague, C.,Keefer, P., Knack, S. and Olson, M. (1999). Contract-intensive money: Contract enforcement, property rights and economic performance. Journal of Economic Growth, 4: 185–211
7. Dao, Ming Quang. (2011). Institutions and development in developing countries: An empirical assessment. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 10 (2): 327-338.
8. Dinçer, O. (2007). The effects of property rights on economic performance. Applied Economics, 39: 825–837.

9. Emin Benli, H. (2017). Yargı Sisteminin Etkin İşleyişi ve Ekonomik Büyüme. Hukuk Yayınları. Ankara.
10. Everest-Phillips, M. (2008). The myth of ‘secure property rights’: Good economics as bad history and its impact on international development. SPIRU Working Paper 23. London: Overseas Development Institute Working Paper.
11. Foss, N. (2010). Property rights economics. In: The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, Edited by Klein, P.G. and Sykuta, M.E., 92-103, Edward Elgar Publishing.
12. Furubotn, E. G. and Pejovich, S. (1972). Property rights and economic theory: A survey of recent literature. Journal of Economic Literature, 10 (4): 1137–1162.
13. Glaeser, E., Scheinkman, J., Shleifer, A. (2003). The injustice of inequality. Journal of Monetary Economics. 50 (1): 199–222.
14. Gradstein, M. (2007). Inequality, democracy and the protection of property rights. The Economic Journal. 117: 252-269.
15. Hall, R.E. and Jones, C.I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others?. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (1): 83-116.
16. Haydaroğlu, C. (2016). The relationship between property rights and economic growth: An analysis of OECD and EU countries. DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, 6 (4): 217-239.
17. Hoskins, L. and Eiras A.I. (2002). Property rights: The key to economic growth. Hoskins, L. and A.I. Eiras. 2002. Property Rights: The Key to Economic Growth. In: 2002 Index of Economic Freedom, Edited by O’Driscoll, G.P et al., 37-48, The Heritage Foundation. Johnson, S., McMillan, J. and Woodruff, C. (2002). Property rights and finance. NBER Working Paper, No. 8852.
18. Keefer, P. and Knack, S. (2002). Polarization, politics and property rights: Links between inequality and growth. Public Choice, 111: 127–154.
19. Kerekes, C. B. and Williamson, C. R. (2008). Unveiling De Soto’s mystery: Property rights, capital formation, and development. Journal of Institutional Economics, 4 (33): 299–325.
20. Khan, Z. B. (1995). Property rights and patent litigation in early nineteenth-century America. The Journal of Economic History, 55 (1): 58–97.
21. Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1995). Institutions and economic performance: Cross-country tests using alternative measures. Economics and Politics, 7: 207–220.
22. Leblang, D. A. (1996). Property rights, democracy and economic growth. Political Research Quarterly, 49(1): 5–26.
23. Mahoney, J. T. (2004). Economic foundation of strategy. Sage Publication.
24. North, D. C. (2002). Kurumlar, kurumsal değişim ve ekonomik performans. Translated by Gül Çağalı Güven, Cambridge University Press, Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
25. O’Driscoll, G.P. and Hoskins, L. (2003). Property rights: The key to economic development. Policy Analysis, No. 482, 1-17.
26. Pejovich, S. (1990). The economics of property rights:Twords a theory of comperative systems. Springer Science and Business Media. USA.
27. Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (1994). Is inequality harmful for growth?. American Economic Review, 84 (3): 600-621.
28. Schäfer, H.B. and Cooter, R.D. (2012). Growth-oriented legal reforms. in: production of legal rules. Edited by Parisi, F., 400-417, Edward Elgar Publishing.
29. Sonin, K. (2003). Why the rich may favor poor protection of property rights. Journal of Comparative Economics. 31: 715–731.
30. Tornell, A. (1997). Economic growth and decline with endogenous property rights. Journal of Economic Growth, 2: 219–250.
31. Torstensson, J. (1994). Property rights and economic growth: An empirical study. Kyklos, 47(2): 231-247.