• Hızlı Erişim
  • Duyurular
  • Dergi Park

    Değerli Yazarlarımız ve Hakemlerimiz

    Süreçlerimiz 03.05.2017 Tarihinden itibaren Dergipark sistemi üzerinden devam edecektir. Değerlendirilmesini istediğiniz çalışmalarınızı http://dergipark.gov.tr/ckuiibfd adresinden dergimize iletebilirsiniz.

     

    Makale Kabul

    Dergimizin 2018 için makale kabul edilmektedir.


Özet


The Impacts of Democracy, Economic Freedom and Corruption on the Economic Growth of Turkey During the Period Between 1980 - 2015

1.Introduction

Democracy is the main factor of the construction of an effective and good quality state agent. From this perspective, as democratic regimes provide less randomness and uncertainty, they play an important role in the management of crises. The participatory democracies are one of the most effective types of democracies for the collection of local information and the operation of an economic process, (Jacob & Osang, 2015). There is a common belief that participatory democracies have a potential that can have a high-quality economic growth. Therefore, democracy should be thought as the most important structural material in the instruction building process.

The most distinctive character of the democratization level is related to a presence of economic freedom. Individual and economic freedom are the strongest factors encouraging economic growth. The economic freedom can be assessed as the right that under this circumstances, individuals can freely perform their economic activities. Similarly, their individual property rights are provided by the authorities (Beskaya & Mannan, 2009). The cultural level of a community and legal regulations for the economic reform are the factors could affect the dynamics of the economic freedom. Democracy and economic freedom might provide an important contribution to the individuals’ lifestyles and attitudes in a community. As long as this contribution level is supported with high economic performance, this will increase the capacity of the economic growth.

This study attempts to analyze the relationship between economic freedom, corruption and economic growth by using the current academic literature. According to the common view in literature, there is a positive relationship between democracy, economic freedom and economic growth. However, it is possible to find different results related to the relationship between economic growth and democracy, and between economic freedom and corruption. In this study, the impact of democracy, economic freedom and corruption on the economic growth during the period between 1980 and 2015 in Turkey has been analyzed econometrically.

2.Method

The model used in this study is determined like below:

BY=   β0+ β1 DEMO   +   β2 YOL   +   β3 ÖZG   +   β4 NÜF +   β5 MEZUN   +   vt

In this concept; the dependent variable BY shows the annual economic growth level in the Gross Domestic Product (GBP). The independent variables in this model could be explained like this; DEMO is political and civil rights indexes; YOL is corruption index; OZG is economic freedom index; NUF is population index, and MEZUN is the graduation number of higher education.

In this study for the stability of the time series the Phillips-Peron unit root test (PP) has been used. Series with unit roots need to be stationary because the time series to be used should be stationary. If series are non-stationary at the level values, they show random walk. A variety of tests are used to determine whether the series contain any unit roots in the above mentioned stationary test. In the test, if series is stationary at the level, it represented by I(0), and represented by I(1) if series becomes stationary after the first differencing. The series becomes stationary from a certain difference after that certain differencing process. In the abovementioned model, in which effects of democracy, economic freedom and corruption on the economic growth of Turkey for the years 1980-2015 were investigated, first stationary test was applied and then causality analysis was conducted in order to examine the relationship between variables.

3.Results and Discussion

According to the PP tests results of stationary tests of the series included in the study, economic growth series is stationary according to both constant and constant-trend model; in other words, it is stationary at level values. Hence, it is concluded that there is no need for differencing of the economic growth series and it is found to be stationary.

Considering the variables such as democracy, corruption, economic freedom, population and umber of higher education graduates, unit root was determined in these variables and they were subject to differencing. As a result of the first differencing, these variables are found to be stationarized according to both constant and constant-trend model. According to the results of unit root test, not all the variables in the model are stationary with the same degree. In the democracy and economic freedom variables, Granger causality was found towards on economic growth. No other causality was found in terms of other variables.

Democracy can play an important role in the economic activities by contributing to the construction and development of the institutional structure. Likewise, democracy has a significant impact on the economic growth. Additionally, there is the Granger causality from economic freedom to the economic growth. Economic freedom can provide an atmosphere for individuals to freely realize their economic activities. If the free activities are supported by economic reforms, the positive results will be found in terms of the economic growth that has been proved by this study which contributes to the development of economic and civil rights. There is no causal relationship between economic growth to democracy, corruption and economic freedom.

4.Conclusion

If the economic freedom is low level in any countries, democracy might not be effective for the struggle with the corruption. However, in the countries where the level of democracy is corrupt, the increase in the economic freedom may be effective to the alleviation of democracy. The general political ramification is that democracy and economic freedom are necessary to the reduction of the corruption. For the democratization, there should be an atmosphere including high-level economic freedom. In this study, by using the data during the period between 1980 and 2015 the relationship between economic growth and democracy, economic freedom and corruption have been analyzed. For this analysis, the Granger causality model has been used. According to findings, economic freedom can contribute to the economic growth. However, there is no result that the higher economic growth might contribute to economic freedom and prevention of corruption. At the end of this analysis, the democracy variable is the Granger causality of the economic growth and it has a contribution to economic growth. However, there is no causality from the economic growth level to the democracy and corruption level. Therefore, there is no causality from the variables such as democracy, corruption, economic freedom, population and number of graduation to the dependent variable (economic growth). Similarly, there is no causal relationship between the economic growth and the democracy, corruption and economic freedom.



Anahtar Kelimeler
The Impacts of Democracy, Economic Freedom and Corruption on the Economic Growth of Turkey During the Period Between 1980 - 2015

Kaynakça

Acemoğlu, D., Johnson, J., Robinson, J.A. ve Yared, P.(2005), Income and      Democracy, Natıonal Bureau of Economıc Research, Çalışma Metni. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w11205

Acemoğlu, D., Johnson, J., Robinson, J.A. ve Yared, P.(2005, From Education To Democracy?, National Bureau of Economıc Research, Çalışma Metni. http://economics.mit.edu/files/4465 (Erişim Tarihi: 22.04.2016)

Acemoğlu, D. ve Verdier, T.(2000), Tho Choise Between Market Failures and Corruption, The American Economic Review, 90(1), 194-211.

Abrams, B.A. ve Lewis, K. A.(1995), Cultural and Institutional Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-section Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 83, 273-289.

Bağdigen, M. ve Dökmen, G.(2006), Yolsuzluklarla Kamu Harcamaları Arasındaki İlişkinin Ampirik Bir Analizi: Türkiye Örneği, ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(4), 23–38.

Baldemir, E., Özkoç, H. ve İşçi, Ö.(2009),MIMIC Model ve Yolsuzluk Üzerine Türkiye Uygulaması, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 24(2), 49-63.

Barro, R.J.(1996), Democracy and Growth, Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 1-27.

Beşel, F. ve Yardımcıoğlu, F.(2015), Demokrasi ve Yolsuzluk İlişkisi: Seçilmiş Ortadoğu Ülkelerinin Analizi, 2013 Ortadoğu Yıllığı, 443-461.

Beşel, F.  ve Savaşan, F.(2014), Türkiye’de Yapısal Kırılmalar Altında Yolsuzluk - Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 27, 73 – 86.

Beşkaya, A. ve Manan, Ö.(2009),  Ekonomik Özgürlükler ve Demokrasi ile Ekonomik Performans Arasındaki İlişkinin Zaman Serileri ile Analizi: Türkiye Örneği, ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(10),  47–76.

Carlsson, F. ve  Lundström, S.(2002), Economic Freedom and Growth: Decomposing the Effects, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 112, 335–344.

Doucouliagos, C. ve Ulubaşoğlu, M.A.(2006), Economic Freedom and Economic Growth: Does Specification Make a Difference?, European Journal of Political Economy, 22,  60–81.

Emerson, P.M.(2006), Corruption, Competetion and Democracy, Journal of Development Economics,81, 193-212.

Fiorino, N.,  Galli, E. ve Petrarca, I.(2012),Corruption and Growth: Evidence from the Italian Regions, European Journal of Government and Economics, 1(2),126-144.

Graeff, P. ve Mehlkop, P.(2003), The Impact of Economic Freedom on Corruption: Different Patterns for Rich and Poor Countries,  European Journal of Political Economy, 19, 605–620.

Haan, J.ve Sturm, J.E.(2000), On the Relationship between Economic Freedom and Economic Growth,  European Journal of Political Economy,  16, 215–241.

Hadhek, Z. ve Karim, K.M.(2012), Democracy, Investment and Economic Growth, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 2(3),233-240.

Hayaloğlu, P.(2015), MINT Ülkelerinde Demokrasi Ekonomik Büyümeyi Nasıl Etkilemektedir?, Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 1(1),17-29.

Jacob, J. ve Osang, T.(2015), “ Democracy and Growth: A Dynamic Panel Data Study”, http://www.cla.auburn.edu/ (Erişim Tarihi: 20 Aralık 2015).

Karagöz, K. ve Karagöz, M.(2010), Yolsuzluk, Ekonomik Büyüme Ve Kamu Harcamaları: Türkiye İçin Ampirik Bir Analiz, Sayıştay Dergisi, 76, 5-22.

Karanfil, M. ve Kılıç, C.(2015), Türkiye Ekonomisinde Üçüz Açık Hipotezinin Geçerliliği: Zaman Serisi Analizi, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 11(24), 1-20.

Karanfil, M.(2014), Türkiye Ekonomisinde Tasarruf Açığı Sorunu: Zaman Serisi Analizi, Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 9(2), 379-394.

Kutlar, A. ve Doğanoğlu, F.(2001), Türkiye’de  1980 Sonrası Yolsuzluklar, Kamu Yatırımları ve Büyüme Üzerine Bir Ekonometrik Çalışma, Kutlar,  5.Ulusal Ekonometri ve İstatistik  Sempozyumu,10-12 Mayıs 2001.

Paldam, M.,(2001), Corruption and Religion Adding to the Economic Model, International Review for Social Sciences, 54(2),383-414.

Quazi, R(2007), Economic Freedom and Foreign Direct Investment in East Asia, Journal of the Asia Paci?c Economy, 12(3), 329–344.

Rodrik, D.(2000), Instıtutions For High-Quality Growth:What They Are and How To Acquire Them, Studies in Comparative Intenational Development, 35(3),3-31.

Saatçioğlu, C. ve Karaca, O.(2015), İktisadi Kalkınmanın Demokrasi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Panel Veri Analizi, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, c 29(4),775-796. 

Saha, S. ve Su, J.J.(2012), Investigating the Interaction Effect of Democracy and Economic Freedom on Corruption: A Cross-Country Quantile Regression Analysis, Economic Analysis and Policy, 42(3),389-396.

Saha, S., Gounder, R. ve Su, J.J.(2009) ,  The İnteraction Effect of Economic Freedom on Democracy on Corruption: A Panel Cross-Contry Analysis,  Economics Letters, 105, 173–176.

Sung, H.(2004), Democracy and Political Corruption: A Cross-national Comparison, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 41, 179–194.

Tanzi, V.(1998), Corruption Around the World Causes, Consequences, Scope, and Cures, International Monetary Fund and Palgrave Macmillan Journals, 45(4),559-594.

Tosun, U.(2003), Yolsuzluğun Nedenleri Üzerine Ampirik Bir Çalışma,,Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 5, 125-146. 

Treisman, D.(2000), The Causes of Corruption: a Cross-national Study, Journal of Public Economics, 76, 399–457.

Yakışık, H. ve Çetin, A.(2014), Yolsuzlukların Sosyoekonomik Belirleyicileri: Yatay Kesit Veri Analizi , Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(3),205-224.

Yardımcıoğlu, F.(2013), Türk Cumhuriyetlerinde Demokrasi ve Yolsuzluk İlişkisi: Panel Veri Analizi  , AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(2), 437-457. 

Yıldırım, S.(2009), Aghion-Howitt Büyüme Modeli Çerçevesinde Ekonomik Özgürlük ve  Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkinin Panel Veri Analizi, DPÜ Sbe Dergisi,25, 259-268.


Adres :Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, Uluyazı Kampüsü, Merkez-ÇANKIRI/TÜRKİYE
Telefon :+90 (376) 218 95 45 Faks :+90 (376) 218 95 46
Eposta :iibfdergi@karatekin.edu.tr

Web Yazılım & Programlama Han Yazılım Bilişim Hizmetleri