RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION: EVIDENCE FROM TURKEY

Year 2021, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 155 - 169, 30.12.2021

Yıldırım Beyazıt Çiçen , Ayça Karakuzu

https://doi.org/10.46737/emid.1025673

Abstract

Gelir eşitsizliği Türkiye'nin önemli iktisadi sorunlarından bir tanesidir. Ekonomik, sosyal ve politik faktörlerin yanı sıra kurumsal faktörler de gelir eşitsizliğini etkilemektedir. Bu çalışmada Türkiye'de kurumların gelir eşitsizliği üzerindeki olası etkileri incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla Türkiye'de bölgesel gelir eşitsizliği 2009-2019 yılları arasında bölge verileri kullanılarak panel veri yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Analizde kurumsal yapıyı temsil eden değişkenler olarak bebek ölüm hızı, okuma yazma bilmeyen sayısı, fakülte veya yüksekokul mezunu sayısı, doktora mezunu sayısı ve hükümlü sayısı kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca kontrol değişkeni olarak finansal hizmetler yerel birim sayısı, finans sektöründe ortalama çalışan sayısı, hanelerde internet erişimi, interneti düzenli kullanan bireylerin oranı ve net göç hızı değişkenleri kullanılmıştır. Modellerden elde edilen bulgulara göre, okuma yazma bilmeyen sayısı, yüksekokul veya fakülte mezunu sayısı, hanelerde internet erişim oranı ve bebek ölüm hızı değişkenleri gelir dağılımı üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır.

Keywords

Kurumlar, Gelir Dağılımı, Bölgeler, Türkiye

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION: EVIDENCE FROM TURKEY

Abstract

Income distribution inequality is one of the important economic problems in Turkey. In addition to economic, social, and political factors, institutional factors also influence income inequality. In this study, the possible effects of institutions on income inequality in Turkey are examined. For this purpose, regional income inequality in Turkey is analyzed by panel data method using regional data between 2009 and 2019. Variables representing the institutional structure such as infant mortality rate, number of illiterate, number of faculty or college graduates, number of doctoral graduates, and number of convicts were used. In addition, the number of financial services local units, the average number of employees in the financial sector, internet access in households, the proportion of individuals using the internet regularly, and the net migration rate variables were also used as control variables. According to the findings obtained from the models, the variables of illiterate number, number of college or faculty graduates, internet access rate in households, and infant mortality rate are statistically significant on income distribution.

Keywords

Institution, Income Distrubution, Regions, Turkey

References

• Arellano, M. (1987). “Computing Robust Standard Errors For Within-Groups Estimators”. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 49(4): 431-434.
• Baltagi, B. H., & Wu, P. X. (1999). “Unequally Spaced Panel Data Regressions with AR (1) Disturbances”. Econometric Theory, 15(6): 814-823.
• Beramendi, P. (2003). Political Institutions and Income Inequality: The Case of Decentralization. (No. SP II, 9). WZB, Markets and Political Economy Working Paper.
• Bhargava, A., Franzini, L., & Narendranathan, W. (1982).” Serial Correlation and The Fixed Effects Model”. The Review of Economic Studies, 49(4): 533-549.
• Borluk, S. (2014). “Türkiye'de Bölgesel Gelir Dağılımı Iraksaması, Verimlilik ve Diğer Dinamiklerle İlişkisi”. Verimlilik Dergisi, 4: 19-44.
• Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). “The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics”. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1): 239-253.
• Brown, M. B. & Forsythe, A. B. (1974), “Robust Tests for the Equality of Variances”. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69: 364–367.
• Calderón, C., & Chong, A. (2009). “Labor Market Institutions and Income Inequality: An Empirical Exploration”. Public Choice, 138(1): 65-81.
• Checchi, D., & García-Peñalosa, C. (2008). “Labour Market Institutions and Income Inequality”. Economic Policy, 23(56): 602-649.
• Chong, A., & Gradstein, M. (2007). “Inequality and Institutions”. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3): 454-465.
• Corak, M. (2013). “Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(3): 79-102.
• Dorfman, R. (1979). “A Formula for the Gini Coefficient”. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 61(1): 146-149.
• Fischer, M. M., & Stumpner, P. (2008). “Income Distribution Dynamics and Cross-Region Convergence in Europe”. Journal of Geographical Systems, 10(2): 109-139.
• Friedman, M. (1937). “The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance”. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200): 675-701.
• Froot, K. A. (1989). “Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation with Cross-Sectional Dependence and Heteroskedasticity in Financial Data”. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 24(3): 333-355.
• Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Hartmann, D., Guevara, M. R., Jara-Figueroa, C., Aristarán, M., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2017). “Linking Economic Complexity, Institutions, and Income Inequality”. World Development, 93: 75-93.
• Holcombe, R. G., & Boudreaux, C. J. (2016). “Market Institutions and Income Inequality”. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(2): 263-276.
• Kim, D. H., Hsieh, J., & Lin, S. C. (2021). “Financial Liberalization, Political Institutions, and Income Inequality”. Empirical Economics, 60(3): 1245-1281.
• Kuştepeli, Y. & Halaç, U. (2004). “Türkiye’de Genel Gelir Dağılımının Analizi ve İyileştirilmesi”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(4): 143-160.
• Levene, H. (1960). “Robust Test for Equality of Variances”. Editor (I. Olkin). Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotteling (278-292), California: Stanford University Press.
• Milanovic, B. (1997). “A Simple Way To Calculate The Gini Coefficient, And Some İmplications”. Economics Letters, 56(1): 45-49.
• Milanovic, B. (2016). Global Inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Newey, W. K., & West, K. D. (1987). “A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix”. Econometrica, 55: 703-708.
• Newey, W. K., & West, K. D. (1994). “Automatic Lag Selection In Covariance Matrix Estimation”. The Review of Economic Studies, 61(4): 631-653.
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• North, D. C. (1994). “Economic Performance Through Time”. The American Economic Review, 84(3): 359-368.
• North, D C. (1997). The Process of Economic Change (Research Paper 128). World Institute for Development Economics Research.
• Oğuz, Fuat, (2010), “Rekabetçi Bir Süreç Olarak Hukuk”. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 60: 231-248.
• Özdemir, M. Ç. & İslamoğlu, E. (2017). Gelir Dağılımı ve Yoksulluk. Seçkin Yayıncılık: Ankara.
• Pamuk Ş. (2012). Türkiye’nin 200 Yıllık İktisadi Tarihi. İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
• Rawls, J. (1971). 1971: A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rogers, W. H. (1993). “Regression Standard Errors in Clustered Samples”. Stata Technical Bulletin, 13: 19-23.
• Sosnaud, B. (2019). “Inequality in Infant Mortality: Cross-state Variation and Medical System Institutions”. Social Problems, 66(1): 108-127.
• Ülgener, S. (1986). Milli Gelir, İstihdam ve İktisadi Büyüme. Der Yayınları: İstanbul.
• Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2013). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi: Stata Uygulamalı. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.